Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 00:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VINAS Businesses[edit]

VINAS Businesses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, failing WP:NORG. The article started a little spammy, but Drmies fixed the worst. Looking at the author's profile, there are also some COI concerns. The references are not sufficient to establish notability. They appear blogs, routine corporate announcements, most likely based on PR (they all use near identical wording). Little if nothing of independent editorial coverage. Not much to be found either. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 23:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 23:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 23:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The article makes no claim to encyclopaedic notability, merely listing the location and registration of the firm, along with a list of the companies and websites which have commissioned services from them. Searches find no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet NCORP. Also creator has obvious COI.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 07:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,Per nom. fails WP:NCORP. Alex-h (talk) 08:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. It is mostly copy/pasted from the two articles, so I think there is nothing to merge. Anyone in doubt please ask for temporary undeletion. Nabla (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-merger of Union Bank of India[edit]

Pre-merger of Union Bank of India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Largely redundant article that duplicates existing topics without adding detail. Might be seen as unnecessary content split. Union Bank of India has existed since 1912, Andhra Bank and Corporation Bank were merged into Union Bank. The articles of all three bank have their History sections. Given relatively low contents available, a split is neither viable nor necessary. One might consider referencing each other with section hat notes from the Union Bank article. Besides, "pre-merger" is a misleading title. This usually describes the period right before a merger, when companies prepare themselves for a intended merger. The article as written is more "History of Union Bank of India". Still, propose to delete. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 23:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 23:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 23:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is simply a copy-paste from the three other articles and is redundant and unnecessary. -- DaxServer (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Union Bank of India - the merger history seem interesting, if there is any info in excess to the main article Union Bank of India, this article should be merged. Cirton (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Kirtos67 The merger history is a simple copy-paste from other articles mentioned. The creator of the page has a history of creating such kind of articles. -- DaxServer (talk) 20:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. czar 21:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. K. Amin[edit]

S. K. Amin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Entirely unreferenced article. Even the external links are generic government and institution websites with no clear connection to the subject. A WP:BEFORE search yielded no sources other than mirror sites and one article that is suspiciously similar to Wikipedia’s entry from Karnataka.com which doesn’t cite where it got its info (probably Wikipedia). It is possible foreign language references exist which I would not be capable of finding. 4meter4 (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This link from Election Commission of India indicates that he was an elected member of the legislative assembly having won from Udupi in the 1967 Mysore Legislative Assembly election. Passes WP:NPOL therefore but needs to undergo a clean up. Jupitus Smart 02:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – members of state-level legislative bodies are inherently notable per WP:NPOL. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the keep votes are stretching WP:NPOL beyond the broader policy frame at Wikipedia:Notability (people). While it appears NPOL may be met, the article still has to meet WP:BASIC which requires in depth coverage. The one source we have is not in depth. Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Special Cases gives clear guidance for when articles are "Failing basic criteria (WP:BASIC) but meeting additional criteria (ie. WP:NPOL)". Those guidelines are to merge this article into another article, not keep it. At this point that seems to be where we are currently at based on the one source we currently have.4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes NPOL; overwhelming consensus is that elected parliamentary representatives are inherently notable (I might be willing to quibble on this point where the status of "elected" is contestable eg Indonesia Orde Baru). In future, and please accept this as comment made in good faith, if a key element of the BEFORE process is lacking (viz a capacity to carry out a search in appropriate local language) perhaps first raise a question at the relevant project where the capacity can be found before bringing to AfD. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NPOL. SNGs are particularly relevant when the sources are difficult to find via a web search, ie, when the sources are likely to exist in a foreign language or might be offline, as in this case. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Goldsztajn and Ab207.--Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 09:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Per above, meets WP:NPOL, Alex-h (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Al-Mu'tasim. czar 21:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marida bint Shabib[edit]

Marida bint Shabib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mother of Al-Mu'tasim, but doesn't seem to be notable in her own right. John B123 (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Al-Mu'tasim? Furius (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Furius. An editor has created a run of articles about the mothers of Abbasid caliphs, where the article content is almost entirely about what their sons did. None of them seems independently notable. Mccapra (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 21:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DemList[edit]

DemList (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Majority of references are primary or mentions. Considered (I am not a Yank) that there are no reliable sources for this article. Does not meet WP:NMEDIA; does not meet WP:WEBPAGE. Whiteguru (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whiteguru and all, I have edited the page to remove any sentences which seemed to promote the organization or used non-encyclopedic language. Hopefully this properly addresses the "contains content that is written like an advertisement". I am currently in the process of searching for new sources which will better adhere to Wiki's policies, as I am aware that the page contains too many primary sources in its current form. I would like to replace these with good quality secondary sources, but want to make sure that they are better than mentions. Could you elaborate on the sources that you feel only qualify as "mentions", as I tried to choose external sources that include at least several paragraphs on the organization. I plan to continue editing and I would encourage others to do the same (including adding better sourcing), so I suggest we KEEP for the time being. Dwolfor3 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Regarding the message from the article's author (Dwolfor3) above, please be advised that notability is a separate concern to promotional writing. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Junior Davis Cup and Junior Fed Cup. Daniel (talk) 04:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Junior Fed Cup Final[edit]

1996 Junior Fed Cup Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability from within the article, which is just a bunch of stats at the moment. Searches did not come back with any significant coverage from independent sources, so does not look to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSEVENT. Would have given this a PROD but creator has a history of contesting the PROD without explanation. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bungstnk what sources gave you that impression? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure)hueman1 (talk contributions) 03:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DZBN-FM[edit]

DZBN-FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources cited and only fandom wikis found in a WP:BEFORE search. No evidence that this radio station meets WP:GNG, if it ever existed at all. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted per WP:A7. (non-admin closure) ASTIG😎 (ICE TICE CUBE) 02:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DWYU-FM[edit]

DWYU-FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero sources and nothing coming up in a WP:BEFORE search. According to the article, this radio station started broadcasting today and plays 'TikTok music'. Not notable. Could even be a hoax. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Repeatedly recreated article by sockpuppet, speedy deleted Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M.Zaid (Vlogger)[edit]

M.Zaid (Vlogger) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Vanity piece (borderline-hoax) on non-notable 'vlogger'. Sources are either self-published or don't support the contents at all, and a search finds zilch. (Plus there are possible COI as well as other issues.) Speedy tag was removed (twice), hence next stop — AfD. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assalamualaikum, Respected Editors i agree with notability tag but you have to keep in mind that this is a Bio-stub. There are many many Wikiepdia Article that Less then 3 or someone none references i can name few Such as: Mahmood-ul Hassan , Aban Marker Kabraji , Almas Bobby just naming few and i should suggest to Keep this article on English WP as according to WP Notability Guidelines. User:Vermilim (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arcesium[edit]

Arcesium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Not seeing anything other than run of the mill coverage about office openings and press releases Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that while the article has now been speedily deleted, a previous speedy deletion request was declined, which prompted me to open the AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of M99 roads[edit]

List of M99 roads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of roads that only contains one entry, M99 road (Johannesburg). A google search indicates the only other road designated M99 is in Michigan (M-99 (Michigan highway)). Unnecessary list that could easily be included in List of highways numbered 99 To retain this list would be a green light to create List of A99 roads, List of E99 roads etc John B123 (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. John B123 (talk) 18:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, and include M99 road (Johannesburg) in List of highways numbered 99 instead. That does not mean "merge and redirect", but "delete and include material elsewhere", as having lots of separate redirects for "List of (letter)(number) roads" is very superfluous. The same approach should be applied to the entire mess of equivalent sub-lists recently created by the same editor. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, and per Elmidae delete the rest of the superfluous articles without ridirecting - the South African M roads can be added to the corresponding List of highways... articles JW 1961 Talk 19:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Yes, there are Michigan highways that could be added to the lists, and quite possibly motorways in the UK and other countries, but the regular highway lists are just fine for this purpose. Imzadi 1979  20:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is a disambiguation page that list both roads that would fit on this list. It is found at M99. This list would be too short to exist. Dream Focus 00:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of this type created by this user: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TapticInfo. It's honestly embarassing that someone would think we need dozens of "List of M# road" pages when they only have a single entry each and can be adequately covered in the main list of those numbered 99. Reywas92Talk 01:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Shankargb (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all articles in the series 'List of Mxx' roads created by user:TapticInfo as per above - lists exist, this duplication adds nothing but a huge number of clearly incomplete additional lists. I hope this 'test case' AfD is sufficient for a mass delete rather than requiring a nomination that lists 'em all and templates each and every page with a nomination??? Also perhaps an admin might counsel the creator to have a wee think before embarking on this sort of ultimately counter-productive Odyssey again? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list with one entry is not a list. Ajf773 (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, A list means more than one (at least), and if such a list existed, what is the use of this topic? Alex-h (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mold Masters[edit]

Mold Masters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Plastics manufacturer which does not appear to have attracted significant coverage of any kind. Should probably be redirected to what appears to be the mother organization, Hillenbrand Inc, if we had an article on that. Used to be redirected to Milacron, which doesn't make much sense as that is just a sister business in the same group (and probably ought not to have an article itself, based on the run-of-the-mill sources provided). In absence of a sensible redirect target, I'd suggest deletion. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:34, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will add new sources please don't delete this page. I've been working to add more third party sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktjiang (talkcontribs) 18:47, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete substandard sources that don't match the quality required for companies Diamondchandelier (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. – Joe (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Composite monitor[edit]

Composite monitor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is WP:SYNTH, there is no such thing as a "composite monitor". This is just a video monitor with a composite video jack (basically a television, but sometimes a distinction is made since a video monitor may lack a tv tuner). Nearly all video monitors since the 1980s have a composite video jack, making this article pointless. Rusf10 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 21:10, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The discussion in the first nomination for deletion is just as relevant now as it was originally, so I won't repeat the details; the votes then should be considered now. It's mainly a historical issue, but composite(-only) monitors were commonly used with computers in earlier days, and less expensive than RGB ones. A Google search for "composite monitor" -wikipedia gets over 30,000 hits, a significant number considering that these monitors have not been made for many years. I think I still have one somewhere, a computer monitor with composite input only. It is indeed "a video monitor with a composite video jack" (and associated circuitry), in the same way as a "hatchback" is a car with a rear door that opens upwards. Added at 16:30, 22/5: I hadn't looked through the article properly, and now agree with comments in the earlier discussion that it needs cleaning up. Pol098 (talk) 12:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A monitor is not defined by the type of jack it has. In fact the same monitor can have multiple types of jacks (then what type of monitor is it?). Most video monitors had/have composite jacks, most computer monitors did not.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Computer monitors with multiple types of input circuit were sold as MultiSync monitors; I bought quite a lot of them. Monitors were named and sold as "composite monitors", e.g. the "AppleColor Composite Monitor". Pol098 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Brief search in InfoWord, PC Mag and Amiga Format magazines shows several adverts or articles mentioning "Composite monitor" in the 80s/early 90s. Maybe a selective merge to another article could solve nominator´s concerns? Pavlor (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep:DeleteKeep: Others have covered the hits. I remember the term well from the late 70's early 80's, but the earlier RGB comment also clicks a memory. My immediate thought wsa CGA Color Graphics Adapter) where this is mentioned but not wikilinked currently, and its also mentioned on the IBM Portable Personal Computer plus maybe somewhere else. The term was in common use back then, even if argued that it was strictly technically correct. The tone of the nom. indicates a vexatiousness and I am calling for a speedy keep. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC) (Switch !vote various time including latest at this timestamp). Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually checked "What links here" on the wrong page, Special:WhatLinksHere/Composite_monitor (per the links) shows this is at least a medium impact delete and therefore a poor choice for simple deletion. The nom. completely failed to mention this in the nom. but rather ranted off something like I often do with their personal opinion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Djm-leighpark:There are roughly 10-15 actual articles that link to this, wikipedia is not going to collapse because of the deletion of this article. Rather than attack me, why don't we talk about how this article completely fails WP:GNG. Hits mean nothing when it comes to notability (see WP:GOOGLETEST). The only sources anyone has come up with are some old advertisements and a owner's manual which is NOT significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject required by GNG. Composite Monitor is at best just a marketing term.--Rusf10 (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusf10 I am not currently choosing to fecked off to on some sort of hunt to prove your allegations false and get beaten up by my wife for neglecting her. If you want to do the nomination you do the rightful legwork please. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark:My nomination is solid, sourcing that would prove the subject's notability simply does not exist. I am not required to prove that sourcing does not exist. If you want this article so badly, the WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN is on you, not me. Stop deflecting and address the sourcing for this article. Thank you.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rusf10: Yes the fucking ONUS and fucking BURDEN is on others which is fucking stressful. Fucking thanks! Is this going to end up as a keep. Undoubtably in my view and I suggest you withdraw. There seems no learning on your part from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schroeder (constructor) only this case is likely stronger. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The incivility and continued personal attacks are unacceptable, so keep it up we can go to WP:ANI, the choice is yours. And you still have not put forth a legitimate argument for keeping this article.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I see the continued failure to bring up things to AfD not tagged for notablity is the problem. That choice is certainly yours! And aren't you in such a big hurry for the sources after the big rush to AfD for a very long standing article? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no requirement to tag an article for notability before going to AfD, so how is that a problem? People have already had over 15 years to add sources to this poor quality article and have failed to do so. How many more do you need?--Rusf10 (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Badger, badger me to add sources to that article. Must admit co-incidently for a different reason I've rescued Bunce 1991 of the Shottsford Forum but no direct on that as it happens so its for the tip unless I work out how to send it to that great library in the cloud by way other than the incinerator. How about time to get Bletchley of St. Pancras in a Covid-19 safe manner? Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 22:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My inclination is to merge to composite video, since the two things go hand-in-hand. I see lots of usage of the term in computer literature from the 1990s, but a single article tying it all together makes more sense than two. Mangoe (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Once more. Any thoughts on a merge, as suggested by Mangoe?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I still support deletion, not merging. What is there to merge anyway? Its a bunch of unsourced content. The only sources are advertisements.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It will obviously assist the nominator's AfD statistics if the article is deleted. The comment about adverts in general is actually quite correct as the WP:COMMONNAME is more usually used by end users than techies,(apart from I believe from Apple in the old days), but is more relevant for some recent SBCs such as (some) versions the Raspberry Pi which have suitable output. More specifically the source relating to the Bobcat's 35721 in the article is not actually what I myself would call an advertisement.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You really should just stop commenting here. Your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality about AfD stats is not helpful. If "Composite monitor" was the COMMONNAME, then why aren't there tons of sources using it? And I have no idea what this Bobcat 35721 you're talking about is. What I do know is one of the sources in the article is literally an advertisement from a shopping website.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusf10: Well you seemed to have changed from the claim "The only sources are advertisements" to the claim "What I do know is one of the sources in the article is literally an advertisement from a shopping website" which is a substantial difference in claim. The date of the advertisement is to a degree an interesting thing here.
At least I could be bovvered to link rot to determine what is was and to determine the quote as written was not supported.  I shall now take myself as forced off the AfD discussion and leave you to have the last comment.  This will be an ongoing battle for me for the next couple of months with this article, or the merge if that is how it goes.  Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd prefer keep but in the event of closer choosing merge I would grudgingly undertake to perform a merge within 7 days; the target being less focused on the monitor angle. I have articles I'd prefer to be working on such as Guide horse and spin offs and if they have to be skimped that's how it will be. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination's claim that there's no such thing is blatantly false. There are numerous books from the early PC era explaining what they are, the relevant standards such as NTSC and the resulting programming issues, as compared with the RGB monitor. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, possibly to composite video as suggested above. The article was unsourced for 16 years until this discussion was opened, most of it remains so, and the new citations are unsatisfactory. Someone has not long ago added a "source capable of sourcing some of the content", but with no citations to it in the main text. Leaving large amounts of unsourced and unverified text just lying around is unacceptable, and, unless someone can make significant improvements in the short term (i.e. not 16 years), said content should be removed asap (WP:NOW). Whoever can find reliable sources can just undo the redirect and pick up from where this was left. Avilich (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bungstnk (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Geschichte (talk) 19:02, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical Inn[edit]

Tropical Inn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Was not notable before 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings, no one knows what happened to the establishment since then either. This would not be notable per WP:SINGLEEVENT, if it is applicable for businesses. Many factual inaccuracies including,

  1. the name,
  2. being a "hotel",
  3. being a "target" of the bombings.

The information can be preserved in the main article. Chanaka L (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough to make this notable. - WPGA2345 - 01:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the author of the article, I agree with the deletion request since the article fails to meet WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:16, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spectacular Smith[edit]

Spectacular Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Original reason was: "Fails WP:GNG; only makes dubious claims". Reason still stands. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article has some fan trivia and non-notable personal matters that can be removed. Those might be the "dubious claims" mentioned in the nomination, but much of the rest of the article is supported. As a businessman, Smith has been covered in sources such as Forbes, Inc., BET, VH1, and Huffington Post. Covered many times in Black Enterprise as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This Wiki should absolutely not be deleted. Spectacular Smith is his own brand, while he was in the group Pretty Ricky, He has since re-branded and is an educated and proven Entrepreneur who has made his mark alone and established a reputable stand alone brand. Spectacular Smith is definitely his own brand and deserves this wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.154.55.171 (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any sources to back these claims? Jalen Folf (talk) 03:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • On behalf of the anonymous person above, the necessary sources have been in the article this whole time. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes the sources are in the article such as Inc, BET, Forbes, TMZ, USA Today, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.154.55.171 (talk) 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - He has significant news coverage, including in Black Enterprise, USA Today, TMZ, etc. Nominator: Please explain what you mean "only makes dubious claims"? which claims? Lesliechin1 (talk) 09:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deep coverage in a number of publications:

50.209.48.53 (talk) 22:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Subject has received coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources (WP:GNG) and appears to be notable. Idunnox3 (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – Joe (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Golam Rabban[edit]

Golam Rabban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to or evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 23:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thale Rushfeldt Deila[edit]

Thale Rushfeldt Deila (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SPORTCRIT states that competitors of the smaller sports are inclusion-worthy if they "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level". The Norwegian handball league is an amateur competition with semi-professional elements and a select few pro players, and not among the leading leagues of Europe. She has only participated for youth national teams, which isn't enough in comparable sports, there must be senior play. In addition I do not see the criterion of multiple non-trivial coverage being met. Geschichte (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Handball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First as information: handball is not a small sport it is under the five biggest team sports in the world and the clear number two in Europe. To the AfD: I found several sources about her [1] and according to this [2] she signed in February a professional contract. According to zip.news there are 48 articles about her. I my eyes she will pass WP:GNG. --Malo95 (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree that SPORTCRIT is failed but GNG looks to be a fairly good pass from the links above Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Mountain (St. Francois County, Missouri)[edit]

Wolf Mountain (St. Francois County, Missouri) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short mountain that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng. Geschichte (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, tiny little insignificant mountain. However, if this is kept, I will create an article about the lake next door. Heart (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sulphur Mountain (Missouri)[edit]

Sulphur Mountain (Missouri) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short mountain that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng. Geschichte (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, tiny little insignificant mountain. However, if this is kept, I will create an article about the lake next door. Heart (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Simms Mountain[edit]

Simms Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short mountain that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng. Geschichte (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, tiny little insignificant mountain. However, if this is kept, I will create an article about the lake next door. Heart (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Johnson's Shut-Ins State Park. Daniel (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goggins Mountain[edit]

Goggins Mountain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Short mountain that lacks sigcov and isn't distinguished in any way, failing WP:geoland and WP:gng. Geschichte (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, tiny little insignificant mountain. However, if this is kept, I will create an article about the lake next door. Heart (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be careful not to violate WP:POINT. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Johnson's Shut-Ins State Park, as feature of it. Djflem (talk) 16:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Johnson's Shut-Ins State Park. This is pretty trivial and does not demonstrate notability, but it has a small amount about it being added to the park. Two sentences here. And a couple more sentences here. Agree that the coverage is all pretty trivial and there's not near enough to build a functional stand-alone article here, but this seems to be a feature of some significance in Johnson's Shut-Ins State Park, and can be described there as a park feature. Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Three relists later and we are no closer to forming a consensus on this one. Daniel (talk) 04:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Guenther[edit]

Andrew Guenther (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search does not find any sources beyond trivial mentions. There are a few good sources mentioned in the article, but I do not think those claimed in the article add up to notability. GNG fail. --- Possibly (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep, there are some critical review of the artist's work like [3] and featuring at [4]. The article length is not per with the notability nonetheless. Chirota (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chiro725: Is artcardsreview.cc a known reliable source? That looks like a blog to me. --- Possibly (talk) 02:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, I could see there is an editorial team who runs the site as its mentioned here, but not certain if their editorial oversight is enough for considering it as reputed. But definitely its not a blog. I am free to change the !vote to delete if others come up with strong arguments in favor of deletion. Chirota (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I did my due diligence and I am not convinced that this artist meets WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. There is little to no press coverage outside of passing mentions at non-notable art museums. I do not see any content provided in the current article that convinces me of anything of worth, either. It's WP:TOOSOON. Missvain (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheChronium 11:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4: I looked at those NYT sources. The first is a namecheck that tells us only that he was in a group show. The second and third one you give are actually the same article, which says, in total, "Karlos Carcamo, Andrew Guenther, the collaborative group Emic-Etic and Gedi Sibony comport themselves with widely varying degrees of effectiveness." The three NYT sources you say are SIGCOV are definitely trivial coverage.--- Possibly (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t consider a featured picture of one his pieces in a New York Times review of a show he is in “trivial”. I think are not evaluating the first source properly in terms of its significance. 4meter4 (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When we look for independent coverage, we are looking for what critics say about their work. The actual work being reproduced somewhere is good, but not really independent coverage. All the article says is "artists such as Ai Weiwei, Tim Barber, Francesco Clemente, Andrew Guenther, KAWS, Richard Prince, Tom Sachs and Kiki Smith have contributed cycling-themed work." All we have learned from the three sources above is that a) he made a bicycle themed work that was in a group show, and b) that he was in another show with a collective of artists. That's why this is trivial coverage: it does not tell us much.--- Possibly (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 15:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The nyt references are trivial (the first one) and lacking depth (second). artcards.cc interview doesn't feel truly independent of the subject. I can't find anything else myself. — Alalch Emis (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Bors, Chris (2007-12-21). "Andrew Guenther in New York". Louise Blouin Media. Archived from the original on 2011-08-24. Retrieved 2021-06-20.

      The article provides 316 words of coverage about Andrew Guenther before printing an interview with him.

      The article notes: "Andrew Guenther is not afraid to take risks, or to show the dark side of humanity by representing the nebulous American dream as the American nightmare. His palette often oozes with acidic color, and he renders the human form as if it just stepped out of a George Romero zombie flick. Sometimes forgoing canvas and painting directly on the wall, he creates what looks like a funhouse seen through the lens of a heavy-metal hippie cult."

    2. Grabner, Michelle (November 2006). "Andrew Guenther". Artforum. Vol. 45, no. 3. p. 304. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.

      The article notes: "In the paintings of Andrew Guenther, the primitive reappears in signifiers of opposition and difference, which take the form of masks, coconuts, and juxtaposed complementary colors. Still, the results are oddly calm—unruffled and unruffling. Guenther employs compositional symmetry, a practiced blend of staining and impasto, and an enormous formal variety characterized by a complex layering of color to achieve visually striking results."

    3. The above two sources provide enough coverage to establish notability. https://themissionprojects.com/artist/andrewguenther/aboutInternet Archive has a bibliography containing sources that might provide more coverage of Andrew Guenther:
      1. 2011, Featured Artist: Andrew Guenther, Artcards Review, Carissa Pelleteri, March 8, 2011
      2. 2009, Lee, Yvonne, Made You Look, Theme Magazine Issue 20, p 62-65
      3. Tarnowski, Dan, Andrew Guenther @ Freight and Volume, Whitehot Magazine, Jan 2009
      4. 2008, Feeding Your Demons, Tricycle Magazine, Summer 2008, p 38-115
      5. Hackett, Regina, East Coast Artist Fail to Stay Grounded in “Supernature,” Seattle Post- Intelligencer, March 14 2008.
      6. 2007, Bors, Chris, Andrew Guenther in New York, artinfo.com, Dec. 212 2007
      7. Suarez de Jesus, Carlos, Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind, Miami New Times, April 27, 2007
      8. Crow, Kelly, New York Art Fairs, Miami Style, Wall Street Journal, Feb 16, 2007, pW3
      9. Herrera, Adriana, Naturaleza e Imaginacion Urbana, El Nuevo Herald, Jan14, 2007
      10. 2006, Guenther, Andrew, Artists On Spirituality, Art Asia Pacific, Winter 2007, p 84
      11. Grabner, Michelle, Andrew Guenther, Bucket Rider Gallery, Artforum, Nov 2006, p 304.
      12. Herstatt, Claudia, “Karaoke im Arbeiterviertel,” Der Tagesspeigel, N.R. 19 306, Sept 9, 2006, p24.
      13. Painting People: Figure Painting Today, Charlotte Mullins, Distributed Art Publishers, Inc., pp 92-3.
      14. Pisano, Hortense. “Niedliche Horribles,” Frankfurter Rundschau, June 10, no 133, p15.
      15. Allen, Kate. “Bad to the Bone,” Paper City, Houston, May, p49.
      16. Hohmann, Silke. “Hotspot der Kunst,” Monopol no 6, Dec/Jan p34.
      17. 2005, Bae, James, You are Here, Art Lies, Issue #48
      18. The Triumph of Painting. Saatchi Gallery, London: Jonathan Cape/Random House, pp 286-7.
      19. ‘Ghosts Bleeding Rainbows,’ Warior Magazine. Vol 2, #1, pp16 – 18.
      20. ‘Sticks & Stones’, Time Out New York. August 11 - 17, Issue 515. p61.
      21. 2004, “Mixed Paint,” Flash Art, vol. XXXVII, n° 239. Nov-Dec, p 91.
      22. Smith, Roberta, “Colony,” The New York Times, Apr 9, p E37.
      23. 2003, Robinson, Walter. “New Art Rules at Scope,” www.artnet.com, Mar 10.
      24. Dannatt, Adrian. “Words Ideas and Etymology,” The Art Newspaper, vol. XIII, n° 134. Mar, p 28.
      25. K48, Issue 4, pp 96-7.
      26. 2002, Dannatt, Adrian. “Spelling it Out,” The Art Newspaper, vol. XIII, n° 129. Oct, p33.
      27. The Village Voice, Sep 25-Oct 1, vol. XLVII, n° 39.
      28. Robinson, Walter. “Weekend Update,” www.artnet.com, Sep 9.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Andrew Guenther to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete This is the sort of AfD that is going to draw complaints regardless of how it is closed. I suspect that is why it was left open so long after the date it was meant to be closed. I am taking this on and I am giving it the attention it deserves. I see that a lot of effort has been put into the debate and I will consider those arguments carefully. Participants are reminded that this is not a vote and arguments are to be compared to relevant policies and guidelines.

First off when considering arguments based in policy I see that there is about equal support for both keep and delete. The primary source of disagreement seems to be regarding if the sources meet the standard of notability so that I where I will focus.

The relevant notability guideline seems to be WP:GEOROAD, both sides seem to agree this is the standard which reads: "Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject."

As such the standard I am employing when looking at opinions on the sources is "multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject.". Note that the standard has several elements:

  • multiple
  • secondary
  • reliable
  • independent of the subject
  • significant in coverage
  • about the subject of the article

A detailed look at the sources were made in the AfD and it was found that they we composed of directories, mere mentions, primary sources, undergraduate theses, or cover the topic of buildings or people that lived on the road rather than the road itself.

A small amount of coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject about the subject a itself was found but it falls far short of significant coverage.

The shear number of sources that are not secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject about the road itself does not add up to significant coverage by secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject about the subject itself.

As such the result of this AfD is Delete due to failing notability requirements. As always my talk page is open but it is not for rehashing the arguments in this AfD, but rather for discussing the closure itself. I fully expect about half of the participants to be unhappy about this outcome but that was going to happen no matter how I closed this. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned to No Consensus per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 26 -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MacDonnell Road[edit]

MacDonnell Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 22 closed as relist; I am implenting this relist outcome. Neutral. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hong Kong roads have populations of thousands, so they are much more significant than the average street in the world. There are a number of important places on this road. SO notability is provable. Relist seems a waste of time as no one whatsoever supported the delete in the original AFD. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is absurd, roads in Hong Kong are not automatically more notable than roads in the rest of the world. Notability is also not transferred from buildings on the street to the street itself. Notability has not been proven. And your opinion about the relist is irrelevant since it went through a deletion review (which you did not even bother to participate in) and the result was relist.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I am reaffirming by deletion vote and would like to add that the relevant guideline for this articleis WP:GEOROAD which says Topic notability for county roads, regional roads (such as Ireland's regional roads), local roads, streets and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject. So far the only sources found are either about buildings on the road (not the road itself) or routine local newspaper coverage of the local real estate market.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication this is more than a generic road, without significant coverage about it specifically. The above comment is ridiculous, as of course any densely populated area will have scores of roads with many people and features in the vicinity, which do not bestow notability to every strip of asphalt between them. Reywas92Talk 23:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is sufficient coverage about MacDonnell Road in this article in the Oriental Daily and this article in the Hong Kong Economic Times to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The Oriental Daily article notes (from Google Translate):

    McDonald’s Road, Mid-Levels Central, which is only a few minutes’ drive away from the central business district, is one of the closest luxury estates in the Central District. Although most of the luxury homes along the street are stratified, the unit size and spacing options are diversified, except for suitable ones. In addition to the open-plan units of single nobles, there are also large mansions with a single-storey area of ​​about 4,500 square feet. Therefore, there are many celebrities and rich people. Even the family of Hong Kong's top richest Henderson (00012) Chairman Lee Shau Kee has lived on McDonald's Road for about 30 years.

    MacDonnell Road (MacDonnell Road) is adjacent to the bustling business district of the Central District, and is also close to the leisure hotspot Soho District (SOHO), making it an ideal residence for office workers in the Central District. The street is less than one kilometer in length. It is connected to Garden Road in the west and Kennedy Road in the east. It has a geographical advantage. Although the McDonald’s Road Association is reminiscent of an American fast food chain, it is actually irrelevant. Its name comes from the sixth Hong Kong Governor McDonald's (Richard Graves MacDonnell).

    There is also coverage in this article from Hong Kong Brand Museum, which says (from Google Translate): "There is a McDonald’s Road in Mid-Levels, but it has nothing to do with fast food brands. It is named in memory of Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell, the sixth governor of Hong Kong. Before 1957, it was called "McDonald Road", and Hong Kong people would also translate the English name Donald into "Dang Slave", so some people would sometimes write "McDonald". According to James L. Watson, a former guest professor of anthropology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, in his book, McDonald’s in Hong Kong considered using the word "slave" to avoid confusion with McDonald’s Road."

    Alternatively, this article could be merged to Richard Graves MacDonnell#Places named after him or his wife per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.

    Cunard (talk) 10:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

THis is all just routine coverage in the local newspaper about the local real estate market. Actually, I think sounds promotional too.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "routine coverage in the local newspaper about the local real estate market". Oriental Daily is a major Hong Kong newspaper, while the Hong Kong Economic Times is a major financial newspaper. These articles discuss MacDonnell Road's significance and history. A non-notable street would not have its significance and history discussed in major newspapers. I don't consider major newspapers' discussion of the road's history and significance to be promotional. Cunard (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:GEOROAD is not proscriptive. It says when roads are presumed to be notable, but not when they are not presumed to be notable. In this case, a notable road which meets WP:GNG and has at least one building on it (without an article as yet) which meets the criteria of WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said it was proscriptive. I cited it because it is actually the applicable guideline (not GEOFEAT) and it means that roads like this must have very good sourcing to be considered notable as opposed to an Interstate Highway which gets auto-notability. Also, we do not transfer notability from one thing to another. (see WP:NOTINHERITED)--Rusf10 (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it again, as you seem to have missed the point. WP:GEOROAD says when roads are presumed to be notable, but not when they are not presumed to be notable. So it is utterly irrelevant to this AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say it again, when something is not presumed to be notable, you must prove its notability. What part of that don't you understand? And then you tell me that GEOROAD is irrelevant, but somehow you think that GEOFEAT is relevant, even though it has nothing to do with roads.--Rusf10 (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Necrothesp (talk · contribs), I think WP:GEOROAD is relevant to this AfD. WP:GEOROAD says, "... local roads ... may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which contain significant coverage and are reliable and independent of the subject." Since MacDonnell Road has received significant coverage in reliable sources, it passes WP:GEOROAD so is notable. Cunard (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A search for "MacDonnell Road" in the database for past SCMP editions (on ProQuest, available via the HK Central Library if you do want to check) returns ~25000 results, of which ~19000 are ads or standalone photos. Many of the rest are notices indicating (e.g.) water rationing, let/sale, appointment of directors, etc.. There were 51 "front page articles" (actual quoting, not MOS:SCAREQUOTES), some of which document notable (in the general sense) events such as a ransacked flat (25/7/1950), a SPC student killed after jumping (19/10/1950), mudslides (17/8/1964), Princess Margaret visiting the St John Headquarters (7/3/1966) etc., but unfortunately I was unable to find an event that related specifically to the road. As per Rusf10, WP:NOTINHERITED. The reason I am not putting this forth as a "Delete" vote is that news coverage does not establish notability, nor does a lack of it establish non-notability; there may well be sources out there of which I am not aware. I hope this assists anyone who decides to join the AfD. My personal opinion is that we take Cunard's alternative action, i.e. merge under Richard Graves MacDonnell. (This is my first AfD, let me know if I'm doing anything wrong!) IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Richard Graves MacDonnell#Governor of Hong Kong, which reflect his history there. 09:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep (just) per User:Necrothesp and User:Cunard but I'd not disagree with Merge / Redirect to Richard Graves MacDonnell#Places named after him or his wife. Ingratis (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm convinced by Cunard's further contribution above. Ingratis (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as above it appears coverage has been found NemesisAT (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Cunard's alternate proposal - I'm not enthralled by the coverage presented above. Cunard contends that it isn't simply local real-estate coverage, as the history of the road is discussed as well, but in all honesty it still reads to me like normal real-estate coverage with a few historical blurbs incorporated to make the subject interesting. None of it seems to go much further than historical fun facts, unless I'm missing something. Still worth mentioning, but maybe just not necessitating an entire article. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 22:22, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard. Passes WP:SIGCOV. A merge proposal can always be made after this AFD closes on the article’s talk page.4meter4 (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge The coverage, to me, either simply describes real estate on the road or doesn't really say anything more than the obvious apart from linking its name to the person it was named after, i.e. neither actually really discuss the street's significance. Based on the sources found and those currently available in the article, we can't do much more than make basic descriptions of the street and then say who it's named after. I'm not convinced there's a better ATD to deletion here either, since there are other MacDonnell Roads (though surprisingly fewer than I would have thought), though I have no problem with including this on the article of the person who the street was named after. SportingFlyer T·C 12:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 15:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Necrothesp the usual "presumed notable" formulation works like this with regard to SNGs: If the subject doesn't meet GNG, it's only shot at notability is meeting the pertinent SNG criteria, and if it does, then it is presumed notable, but it may still be concluded (through consensus) that it is not notable, despite the presumption, because said presumptions are not irrebuttable presumptions (contrast conclusive presumption with rebuttable presumption). If the subject meets neither GNG or SNG to qualify for the presumption of notability, it means that there is nothing to base on that it is notable, and the intended conclusion is that it is non-notable. Since this subject doesn't meet GNG, and doesn't meet the relevant SNG, as explained by other advocates of deletion it is non-notable. Like Rusf10, I find the Oriental Daily text to be mere promotional padding. It's on a page that advertises real estate. The heading translates as "Luxury House Guide: McDonald's Road has many luxury houses to choose from". "McDonald’s/McDonald road" content from the museum source is a pretty pointless factoid. If these are such excellent finds, we should be able to incorporate some of the information into the article, right? But would any of it make the article better? (No.) — Alalch Emis (talk)
  • Keep. An old street of Hong Kong, with a long history. It is one of the streets that contains the most 999-year leases in Hong Kong, a rare form of land lease in the territory. Also, I have added content and references. Definitely worth its own article: more relevant history and information can certainly be found. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 07:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hong Kong Gazette pdfs appear to be routine mentions in government documents for the sale of land lots and the construction of a bridge, neither discuss the road significantly and unfortunately do not meet WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 11:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My point is about the 999-year leases in Hong Kong, not about the documents which report them. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 05:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the documents which report them, as a whole, don't give us enough significant coverage to write an article on without delving into WP:OR. I don't care about the 999-year leases, that has nothing to do with being wiki-notable. It doesn't help that it's now been ref-bombed with WP:OR from government surveyor contracts and the like. SportingFlyer T·C 20:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you care or not about the 999-year leases is your personal choice. They happen to be uncommon and represent a very special type of lease in Hong Kong. I am confident that scholarly analysis of this type of lease exist, and explain why they are important. Hopefully some other people will care about improving the relevant articles and look for that. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 20:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about those leases, though, which might be worth their own article - it's about a road, and in spite of the 26 references in the article, not only are most primary references to historical Hong Kong documents (and therefore original research), there's not a single one that actually demonstrates significant secondary coverage of the road. SportingFlyer T·C 21:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad that you had a look at the article and noticed that it has improved substantially. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it still is not sourced well enough for our notability guidelines. The malaria note considered an excellent find just lists the name of the road in parentheses, for instance. SportingFlyer T·C 08:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that you actually read the article and go through the refs. Your statement "not only are most primary references" is inaccurate. Positive suggestions/ contributions would also be useful. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, here we go. 27 sources and, excepting the one I cannot access, not a single one passes GNG:
1. This book is a directory of places in Hong Kong and the things named after them. It includes a total of two sentences about the road, the second one only noting that it "may be misspelled" and some information about MacDonnell the person, the line about developing Victoria Peak is a near copyvio. Unfortunately, it may be the best source.
2. Hong Kong Government Gazette: A primary directory which lists 20-30 streets and their new names, not SIGCOV
3. For some strange rason, the early planners of Kowloon had duplicated a number of streets, among them Robinson, Macdonnell, and Chater Roads. is the extent of the coverage. Not SIGCOV.
4. Under "Roads, Streets and Public Offices in Hongkong", for example, a reader would have been puzzled to find, right next to Bowen Road and Kennedy Road, a certain "Mac Donald Road", presumably in error for MacDonnell Road. is the extent of the coverage - clearly not SIGCOV.
5. adopting a version of the three-character phrase used to represent a well-known local street, MacDonnell Road. is the extent of the coverage. Not SIGCOV.
6. Hong Kong Government Gazette: Primary, just a list of works carried out by the surveyor in 1891, neither secondary nor SIGCOV
7. A report from the Hong Kong director of public works from 1892: neither secondary nor SIGCOV
8. A report from the Hong Kong director of public works from 1899: neither secondary nor SIGCOV
9. A contract in the government gazette about the sale of the lot on the road, only mentions the name of the road, not SIGCOV
10. A contract in the government gazette about the sale of the lot on the road, only mentions the name of the road, not SIGCOV
11. Does not mention the road at all
12. Only includes the name of the road in parentheses, not SIGCOV
13. A report on malaria in which the name of the road is asked in a question as to the location of where malaria broke out, primary, not SIGCOV
14. ...had encroached only as far as Macdonnell Road, a safe distance from "The Peak." Between Macdonnell and May roads... is the extent of the coverage. Not SIGCOV.
15. Only mentioned in a single sentence which just mentions the location of the Punjabi HQs. Not SIGCOV.
16. Nothing more than an address for an ambulance company
17. An undergraduate thesis, typically disregarded for notability reasons
18. More PRIMARY government documents (any road in Hong Kong would be discussed here, does not show notability)
19. More PRIMARY government documents (any road in Hong Kong would be discussed here, does not show notability)
20. About a building on the road, not the road itself
21. About historic buildings, not the road itself
22. About a building on the road, not the road itself
23. This is a review of planning decisions in Hong Kong and only references the street because there were two cases regarding buildings on that street. However, it references many different streets in Hong Kong and doesn't demonstrate notability.
24. ...who lived on MacDonnell Road. is the extent of the coverage. Not SIGCOV.
25. (I can't actually find this source)
26. Another undergraduate thesis
27. A final undergraduate thesis. SportingFlyer T·C 11:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I endorse this overview of sources as well-founded and neutral. — Alalch Emis (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The statement "not a single one [source] passes GNG" is inadequate: GNG applies to subjects, not to sources. Regarding the importance of the texts used as references, the book by James Watson for instance, is an instance of a landmark study in anthropology. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing unreliable about that book, and I am not implying there is; I believe that maps to #5 above. When I say "not a single one passes GNG," I mean that we need at least a couple reliable, secondary, independent sources which significantly cover the road in order to show notability, and none of the sources in the article currently do that. It does not matter if a landmark study mentions the street, that source doesn't count towards WP:GNG unless it properly covers the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 17:05, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For context, here is a longer version of the text explaining how the McDonald's name was transliterated into Chinese. Excerpted from James Watson's book: Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The transliteration process was a delicate one, given the long history of disasters attending the rendition of foreign names in Chinese. Mr. Ng decided to capture the sound of "McDonald's," in three homophonic characters, rather than create a name that would convey meaning-thus making the company appear to be a Chinese enterprise. Many local people reacted badly when Kentucky Fried Chicken first entered the Hong Kong market and chose a Chinese name that meant, literally, "Hometown Chicken." "Kentucky is certainly not my hometown," one longtime resident exclaimed. (KFC later dropped this name and began using a transliterated title based on sound rather than literal meaning.) Hong Kong McDonald's hoped to avoid confusion by adopting a version of the three-character phrase used to represent a well-known local street, MacDonnell Road." (emphasis added)
To me, the statement of "not a single one /source/ passes GNG" is an immediately understandable elliptical rendering of "not a single one /source/ meets the standard of the kind of coverage that is required under GNG". — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me, that's a textbook WP:TRIVIAL mention of the road. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an old saying goes: "You can't make a pie out of crabapples!" — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that you keep the discussion on topic. Thank you. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to clarify that I thought the malaria anecdote was an 'excellent find' since the BMJ wouldn't be the first source that comes to mind for finding information on Hong Kong roads, and I found the factoid rather interesting. In terms of WP:SIGCOV, I agree that it falls quite a ways short of 'excellent'. Risking going off topic here, but on second thought malaria was endemic in Hong Kong until the 1960s so perhaps it isn't that much of a surprise that a residential road through a mountainside would be a ripe breeding ground for mosquitos. IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 05:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just. I think Underwaterbuffalo's contributions just about tips the article into notable territory. I base this opinion on the addition of sources describing the construction of the road, McDonald's' reference to the road when choosing its localised name, and the BMJ note (excellent find!) on the road having been a malaria-infested area. However, I'm not hopeful that this article will grow any further than a stub — I think much of the recently-added content is unfortunately, with respect, tangential and superfluous. Nevertheless, if WP:OFFTOPIC and WP:NOTINHERITED were taken strictly, we would have very few road-related articles indeed, hence my vote for retention. IndentFirstParagraph (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sigcov in reliable secondary sources hasn't been demonstrated, as basically admitted by the reluctant keep voter above. I've also seen an WP:ITSOLD argument here. Mundane facts like a malaria outbreak would belong in an article if its subject were notable, but do not themselves establish notability. Avilich (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that SIGCOV in reliable secondary sources has been demonstrated by Cunard. These are all Chinese language sources. Note that no Chinese language source has been used to write the article thus far, and that no Chinese language source (including the ones listed by Cunard) has been used as a reference. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cunard's sources aren't great either. That's been established. If there are additional sources which discuss the road significantly and aren't real estate blurbs, that would be helpful. SportingFlyer T·C 10:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an excellent example of the kind of street that is notable. Most major streets or streets of special interest in any laerge city will be notable . We can interpret significant coverage to meet the situation--the material in the article shows the importance. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus and not for lack of attempting to find one. While there were a few invalid arguments on the "keep" and "delete" sides, most did indeed directly address the availability of source material, and just didn't agree on whether or not it was sufficient to justify an article. At this point, I don't think further relisting is going to make things any clearer, but maybe a new and more focused discussion in the future could. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Leiningen[edit]

Hermann Leiningen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person notable only as a descendant of royalty. As always, notability is not inherited, so people are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their name technically shows up in the triple-digit "this is never, ever, ever actually going to happen" range in a royal succession list -- but this makes absolutely no claim that he has done anything that would make him notable for his own achievements, and of the five footnotes three are genealogical and one is a YouTube video, which aren't notability-supporting sources at all. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more than just one article about him in a real newspaper. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I disagree that WP:NOTINHERITED is applicable here since nobility inherently derives notability from inheritance. The question is rather whether there are enough RS to cover this subject. The question is rather whether WP:GNG is fulfilled here, the National Post piece seems be the piece with most in-depth coverage of the subject itself. Passes WP:GNG and WP:RS. --hroest 01:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GNG requires a lot more than just one newspaper article about him. It requires multiple pieces, not just one, and it distinguishes between "coverage which exists in noteworthy contexts that pass Wikipedia's inclusion criteria" (which helps) and "fluffy human interest coverage" (which does not). Bearcat (talk) 13:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per responses made in previous delete nom. the so-called YouTube video was uploaded to the official channel of 16×9, a news magazine originally broadcast by Global Television Network. the segment aired in the summer of 2012, I think. the YouTube channel was rebranded to Crime Beat last year, another Global program. here. Zentulku (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The previous deletion request listed a dozen potential sources which were not added to the article for one reason or another. However, asserting a Jewish-community news website and a German banking industry magazine are not "real" news is uncomfortable to read on Wikipedia regardless if the intent was to somehow prove Leiningen is unworthy of an article because of x and y… STRONG KEEP. Fostrdv (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the refs posted by Rdzogschen in thread for the previous delete request: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. CNJ, PBM, and Queen's College magazine, are "real news," as far as I'm aware. The rest appear to be press releases of various flavors. Fostrdv (talk) 03:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No on Queen's; university and college student media can be sparingly used for supplementary verification of stray facts after GNG has already been passed, but cannot count as data points toward getting a topic over GNG — and that's especially true when the student media in question is covering the person in the context of being a former alumnus, and/or the father of current students, of that same university rather than in the context of anything measurable against an inclusion criterion.
PBM is a Q&A interview in which he's answering questions about himself in the first person, which is not a type of source that can be used to support notability — like student media, Q&A interviews can be sparingly used for supplementary verification of stray facts after GNG has already been covered off, but do not contribute toward the process of getting a person over GNG in the first place.
Press releases self-published by organizations or companies that he's directly affiliated with, on sites such as Business Wire, Cision or World Market Intelligence News, are not notability-building sources, because they aren't independent third party analysis.
"Posthumous Award for King Boris" isn't about Leiningen for the purposes of helping to establish his notability — it isn't covering him in the context of doing anything notable, it just briefly quotes him giving soundbite in an article about someone else. And the Canadian Jewish News hits aren't "covering" him in the context of doing anything noteworthy, either: one is just about him giving a speech to a non-notable organization, which is not a notability claim, and the other is just about his quiet life in Oakville, which is not a notability claim.
GNG is not just "as soon as X number of web pages can be found that have his name in them" — it doesn't just count the number of footnotes, but tests them for their type, their geographic range, their depth and the context of what they're covering the person for, and discounts some potential sources as being worth much less than others. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe Rdzogschen did some editing to the article that included those sources but a user deleted them. I'd have to check the edit history. But yes, PBM is a real news source, though its print editions are very hard to find outside of a few cities in Germany-- The refs include Israeli state news who made mention of Leiningen's receipt of the posthumous award to Boris III. Israeli TV (I don't remember which channel) ran several segments featuring Leiningen and other members of his family roughly the same time 16×9 ran its segment. Thosbsamsgom (talk) 06:07, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Baby Prince Christened". Windsor Star. Vol. 90, no. 80. CP. 1963-06-04. p. A11.
  2. ^ Hickey, Trisha (2003-07-19). "Club turns 100: Empire: Prince Andrew, the Duke of York, attends Centennial Luncheon". National Post (Toronto ed.). p. TO.7.
  3. ^ Miskin, Maayana (2010-04-15). "Posthumous Award for King Boris". Arutz Sheva. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
  4. ^ "RBC Wealth Management hires new MD of family office and institutional investments". World Market Intelligence News. 2014-05-02 – via ABI/INFORM.
  5. ^ "Hope – A Key Message at Cayman Captive Forum". Business Wire. 2016-12-13. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
  6. ^ "The Family Office Landscape - A Forever Moving Target at Sir Anthony Ritossa's 9th Global Family Office Investment Summit Under the High Patronage of HSH Prince Albert II of Monaco". PR Newswire. 2019-06-25. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
  7. ^ Abdelmahmoud, Elamin (2011). "A prince of a man" (PDF). Queen's Alumni Gazette. Vol. 85, no. 3. p. 49. ISSN 0843-8048. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
  8. ^ Granovsky, Josh (2019-04-04). "Meet the Princess on University Avenue". The Queen's Journal. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
  9. ^ "Na'amat hosts fundraiser fit for a prince". Canadian Jewish News. 2013-10-18. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
  10. ^ Silverstein, Barbara (2014-12-08). "Crown prince whose grandfather saved Jews lives quietly in Oakville". Canadian Jewish News. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
  11. ^ Bürger, Tobias (2019-02-07). "Mein Team hat keine Kunden" [My Team has No Customers]. Private Banking Magazin (in German). Edelstoff Media. Retrieved 2020-08-08.
  • Delete Having a famous parent does not make a person notable. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the 11 references provided in the previous AFD which was almost snowing, were more than enough to keep. I have no idea why this was nominated with those 11 references so easy to see. But it's another Before failure. Nfitz (talk) 01:58, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Twinkle does not preinform a person that there's been a prior AFD nomination at all — if you're using Twinkle to formulate an AFD nomination, then you get absolutely no indication whatsoever that there's been a prior AFD discussion until your AFD nomination is done and turns out to have "(2nd nomination)" in the finished title. It gives you no notification of any prior AFD discussions until the new nomination is done and submitted. So it is not a "before failure" to not have already known about a prior AFD discussion, in which sources were listed that were never added to the article. Regardless, the sources listed in the first discussion are not all valid support for a WP:GNG pass, as the same list of sources has been reoffered in this discussion, and already addressed above: more than half of them are press releases self-published by organizations he's directly affiliated with and/or university student media, which are not support for notability at all, and the less than half that do come from real media are not covering him in "inherently" noteworthy contexts. So my failure to have been psychically aware of a list of bad sources isn't a failure. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - most of the 11 references above are not even about the article subject, (and if they mention him it's not in a significant fashion [the piece about Boris III is significant coverage about Boris III, not this person]; or they're clearly nothing more than press releases or pieces from student newspapers, which are not really "significant coverage"...). The sources in the article are genealogical (thus, not evidence of notability given their database-like nature). I couldn't find anything more significant that was not an interview or the like. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NOTINHERITED (not even being anywhere close in the line of inheritance does not, in any way shape or form, create inherent notabiility). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree User:RandomCanadian that most of the 11 don't go towards GNG. But I thought number 1 and 1011 did. And I think that's enough. Nfitz (talk) 20:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. 11 is, in German, a letter/interview from the subject, so that's no good, and no. 1 is offline and you haven't provided a description of it's contents or a link to an online version so I can't check. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant 10, User:RandomCanadian. Number 1 is CP feed, so should be easy enough to find. Here's the Windsor Star version - oddly they must have messed up that day, as it's both on page A-11 and also on page B-9, with slightly different headlines! Though I must confess now, I can't find another newspaper that carried that CP feed. However, there is an even longer, different, article the previous day in the Toronto Star at ProQuest 1433072940 along with a less notable announcement a couple of days earlier in The Globe and Mail at ProQuest 1313952602.
But if I'm going to start a BEFORE - what's wrong with these quickly Googled references one, two, three, and four. I don't know how User:Bearcat didn't see these - they are literally the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th hits at a simple Google search. Who knows what the other 277 hits get (I didn't page down). Nfitz (talk) 21:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having two or three pieces of human interest coverage is not enough coverage to hand a person a GNG-based exemption from having to have an achievement-based notability claim that would pass any SNGs. GNG does not just count the footnotes and keep anybody who happens to pass an arbitrary number — it does take into account the context of what the person is being covered for, and "banker with no discernible claim to passing our inclusion criteria for bankers happens to be descendant of royalty" is not an inherently notable context, so it takes a lot more than just two or three pieces of human interest coverage to get such a person over the bar. Coverage has to be about him doing notable things to count as support for notability, not just about who his 3x-great-grandmother happens to be (see e.g. WP:NOTINHERITED.)
And there's a reason I didn't say "four" pieces of human interest coverage, by the way: the last of those four links is, once again, the self-published alumni magazine of his own alma mater, which is not a GNG-building source. It's a type of source that can be used for supplementary verification of stray facts after notability has already been covered off by stronger ones, but is not a source that can help to bring the GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first 3 alone establish GNG - which was already established with the existing references. SNG has no relevance, as per WP:N, "A topic is presumed to merit an article if" it either meets GNG and SNG. Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GNG requires sources which are both significant, non-trivial coverage (i.e. WP:NOTNEWS), and which are entirely independent of the article subject. Of the three sources above (disregarding the fourth one), the first one looks like an interview (it reports multiple statements from the subject, and it is clear from how they are introduced that this was part of some form of an interview); so does the second, and the third is basically a near exact copy of that (so it doesn't count as a different source - multiple sources reporting the same thing [such as newspapers repeating the same piece from agencies like the AP, or a press release, or the like] are all effectively reporting one and the same thing. So that basically leaves us with "sources" which read more like puff pieces and whose only claims about the subject's notability are that he is a distant descendant of a royal bloodline. WP:A7 is a thing, and WP:NBIO is also clear that the topic of a biographical article should be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". A few puff pieces about descent from some royalty (studies show that the vast majority of the European population is likely descended from a most common recent ancestor no later than about 32 generations (900 years or so) ago - and likely that most modern Europeans are descended from Charlemagne, specifically).[1][2][3] are not enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the existence of two or three pieces of fluffy human interest coverage were all it took to say that a person passed GNG and was therefore exempted from having to be notable for any particular reason, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who once got into the papers for finding a pig in her front yard. If a person has a hard pass of a "must include" criterion, such as winning election to an inherently notable political office or winning a major notability-clinching award, then just two or three sources are enough — but if you're shooting for "doesn't pass any SNGs but is notable under GNG anyway just because media coverage exists", then you need more like 10 or 12 pieces of substantive reliable source coverage, not just two or three. Bearcat (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This statement rather catches me off-guard. What generally-accepted policy or guideline states 10-12 independent, nontrivial, reliable sources are necessary to meet GNG? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY: There's nothing in the article that is not of a geneological or similar nature. Also no significant coverage in reliable sources. Sandstein 20:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Are you descended from royalty? Six things to consider". The Guardian. 2018-10-11.
  2. ^ Chang, Joseph T (1999). "Recent common ancestors of all present-day individuals" (PDF). Adv. App. Prob. 31 (4): 1002–1026. doi:10.1239/aap/1029955256. S2CID 1090239.
  3. ^ Ralph, Peter; Coop, Graham (2013-05-07). "The Geography of Recent Genetic Ancestry across Europe". PLOS Biology. 11 (5): e1001555. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC 3646727. PMID 23667324.
  • Delete - notability is not inherited. Not enough in-depth coverage about him to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 02:57, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it with the coverage it probably a keep e.g The Canadian who would be king. It probably satisfies WP:BASIC, WP:THREE and more. VocalIndia (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Prince Karl of Leiningen. It is biographically significant enough for the merge target that his sons have these two royal lineages, and that he is a grandfather of his grandchildren. BD2412 T 06:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not sure we've quite reached a consensus here, but seems to be leaning towards keep based on GNG, though some dispute about the sufficiency of the sources remains.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 22:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has a number of coverages which would surely make it to satisfy GNG. Zin Win Hlaing (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is sufficient coverage. Rdzogschen (talk) 09:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see significant coverage. He works at a bank; so did I for several years, which does not make ne notable. Is he a VP or COO? I am know (or notorious) for my fairly lax standards at User:Bearian/Standards#Notability_of_Consorts_of_nobility, but I'm afraid he fails. I would not oppose a merge back and redirect. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . There’s enough coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. Generally being a member of the nobility, even minor nobility, makes you notable by birth as evidenced by the sources. Nobody is claiming his work as a banker is significant.4meter4 (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat; in particular agreement with this part of his argument the Canadian Jewish News hits aren't "covering" him in the context of doing anything noteworthy, either, to which I would add: the piece is obviously about the story of saving the Jews, and the information on the subject is a pretext to create a reason to retell the actual story, i.e. trivia to catch your attention. The The Canadian who would be king article on the other hand is about daily life with the historical tidbits acting as trivia. There is something trivially interesting and eye-catching in all of this, but there is a serious reason not to maintain the article which is WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Plus all the other more prosaic arguments consistently put forward by other delete proponents (such as WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:SIGCOV), and not refuted. For example I find the counter of nobility inherently derives notability from inheritance to be an explicit negation of an obvious result of adding NOTGENEALOGY and NOTINHERITED together, and therefore completely invalid. — Alalch Emis (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 15:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SIGCOV from reputable sources such as The National Post. Richiepip (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all above and there’s enough coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. I don't really understand pervious AfD result is pretty clear but why admin or closure very delay to close this discussion. I see, they are wasting time unnecessarily. Taung Tan (talk) 02:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per all above, one should much more gladly conclude that there isn't enough coverage to pass WP:SIGCOV. — Alalch Emis (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is there a reason why this AfD remains open, looks like 5+ weeks old, I thought the policy is that they are closed or relisted by admins after ~7 days? Now over 13days long!! the relisted days are over than over. Is there really any need to relist it ?, Consensus is pretty obvious here? Useless admin are biased here and What do they want? They will not stop until more delete votes come here! What is the community value of this AfD? 37.111.8.14 (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NOT TABLOID. People have to have actually done something to be notable, and sources that cover someone only because of their birth or inclusion in obsolete notbality are not reliable for the peruposes of establishing notability --they're either directory source or gossip sites. The rean why "a Jewish-community news website and a German banking industry magazines" are not useful for notability is thatthey are nonselective, and cover those in their community regardeles of general significance, anf I ;d say the same of small town newspapers --it';s not our being prejudiced--it applies to all such special-interest sources. DGG ( talk ) 07:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NOTINHERITED applies, nobility or not. Does not meet GNG or ANYBIO. Basically per the analyses of Bearcat and DGG. --Randykitty (talk) 12:35, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:51, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Omar Gosh[edit]

Omar Gosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

References do not show the notability of the subject. Not so many changes from previous deletions. fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGIND GermanKity (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't have access previous article, I assume based on WP:BASIC and WP:ENT It's notable since it has gained more subscribers and based on the arguments in this page. Mjbmr (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: His YouTube channels have more than 4 million subscribers.-- Dewritech (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid argument for keeping. He could have 1 billion subscribers, but still not meet WP:GNG. he needs significant news coverage.Peter303x (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter303x: Your statement is against WP:ENT. Mjbmr (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ENT does not state that social media followers should be considered as a factor. It states that he needs to have significant roles in films and TV. If you want to consider Youtube as some kind of TV channel, then still he would need to have lot's of news coverage about his roles and he doesn't. Social media followers could be fake and bought, so it is not a reliable factor. Peter303x (talk) 08:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter303x: Please read my first comment above, I believe you should be more active on more AfDs, such as this, apparently people believe if the article has a huge fan base then it's considered as notable. I actually refer to an article as "it" while you refer as "he", consider your POV. Mjbmr (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep nearly 4 million subscribers on his main channel should constitute a "large fan base or a significant "cult" following" to satisfy WP:ENT. However, the sources do need some cleanup

Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Man teaches kids to give, inspiring millions Yes Yes Local news Yes Has quotes from creator and insight Yes
Bay Area YouTuber Giving Away One Free Super Bowl Ticket Yes Yes Local news Yes Has quotes from creator and insight Yes
Michael Jackson 'speaks to ghost hunter from beyond the grave' in bizarre video Yes No WP:DAILYSTAR No Just a link to video and summary No
The 5 spookiest haunted Delaware videos of 2019 (so far) Yes ? Unsure about reliability of Technical.ly No Just a link to video and summary No
10 Sad Photos Of Cars Discovered Underwater (5 Found In Deserts) Yes Yes Cars news website No Just a screenshot from a video No
Enviarse a sí mismo por correo y otros retos virales absurdos de 2016 Yes ? Unsure about reliability of El Mundo No Just a link to video and summary No
Prankster hands out brand new socks and shoes to the homeless Yes No WP:METRO No Just a link to video and summary No
He Wanted to Teach His Son to Care for the Homeless, But No One Saw This Coming (VIDEO) Yes Yes Online Christian Newspaper No Just a link to video and summary No
They Washed the Feet of the Homeless, But One Surprise Left a Volunteer in Tears Yes Yes Online Christian Newspaper No Just a link to video and summary No
Caméra cachée : il demande de l'argent et à manger à des sans-abri, leurs réactions sont touchantes Yes ? Unsure about reliability of Purebreak No Just a link to video and summary No
Tampa man buys homeless man ticket home Yes Yes Local news Yes Has quotes from creator and insight Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

In summary, despite a significant fanbase, there haven't been many sources to satisfy GNG besides local news coverage, but the coverage does go beyond WP:ROUTINE in my opinion, so it just barely passes. Note I have since removed the Daily Star and Metro sources as they're uncontroversially unreliable. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are self-published or PR and do not satisfy WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 06:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources do not have in-depth coverage and there is not that many sources. Peter303x (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Per above, per WP:ENT. I believe, it has significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Mjbmr (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and per WP:NOTNEWS. The sources are human interest puff pieces, and are mainly local news. There's not enough here to warrant an encyclopedia entry.4meter4 (talk) 13:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 15:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, as per Qwaiiplayer's source analysis above. MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:01, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus (role-playing game)[edit]

Exodus (role-playing game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found this while organizing the template box for the Fallout series. This article and its contents is a shocker. The article is ostensibly about a role-playing game which was originally supposed to tie-in with the Fallout franchise, but due to the legal drama between Interplay and ZeniMax, changed focus and became its own thing. One would think if such an article is nominated for deletion, it would probably be due to lack of its notability/notoriety or that the article is overly in-universe focused.

But no, it's worse. At least half of this article isn't actually about the game's rules or even its in-universe content, but actually about the RPG's IP legal drama and the involvement of the game's developers in their legal dispute with Interplay. None of it was ever sourced, besides a primary source link to the original developers' now long-inactive website. And it has remained that way for nearly 15 years. I went and did a thorough search per WP:BEFORE for sources, and all I ever found were Fandom/Wikia-related discussions, and numerous reddit/forum/personal blog posts. Absolutely nothing usable I could find about the original RPG which appears to have always languished in obscurity. I have so far, yet to uncover any information specifically about the legal proceedings between Glutton Creeper Games and Interplay, and yet this article go through it in surprising detail. I have concluded that besides the fact that there is no coverage which demonstrates that the topic is notable to begin with, the article is also a part-promotional coatrack for the original company (which is defunct) and part-outlet of vendetta spouting potentially defamatory material. This is the kind of content that brings the entire Wikipedia project into disrepute and the reason why concerns were raised years ago about Wikipedia's hosting of potentially defamatory material to begin with. Haleth (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Haleth (talk) 11:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG. After trawling through Google the only source even approaching reliable that I could find is the three paragraphs on it here [8]. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 14:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am not seeing any good sources here (ping me if they are found). There is also the option of redirecting this to (unrelated) Ultima III: Exodus, a crpg that is sometimes referred to as the "Exodus RPG" or such. If kept, a hatnote disambig or such may be needed here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep [9] covers the lawsuit. [10] is quite detailed and appears to be reliable. [11] is less detailed but certainly reliable. Not great, but over the GNG bar. @Piotrus: Hobit (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Note I did come across the second link but it is a fanzine/blog (per the about page) and so probably not an RS. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 16:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears to have both articles and blogs. This is an article. And nothing excludes reliable fanzines. This one has been running for at least 11 years (the article in question is 11 years old) so isn't a fly-by-night thing. Hobit (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Won't argue the toss over it, but from a search it looks like the reliability of Flames Rising in particular has been discussed before at AfD, and the conclusion in that case was apparently that it isn't ("1 thin RS" is the journal article). Given that in any case we're relying on two borderline sources, FR and Geek & Sundry, to push it past the bare minimum of GNG it's still going to be a no from me, at least. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 21:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Geek & Sundry is really the only source cited here that is helpful to demonstrate notability for any pop culture topic, but the entirety of the content are 3 paragraphs about the legal drama behind the game, and barely any significant coverage about any actual aspect of the game itself. That kind of information is probably helpful for a “Legal Issues” on Bethesda’s article, or even as a component for a hypothetical standalone article about “controversies” or “legal issues” involving Bethesda. The Spanish one appeared to be saying the same things from a machine translation, and again only consists of a few paragraphs that is barely about the game itself. FlamesRising is of dubious reliability, and as pointed out by others, it is situational at best due to its status as a fanzine. I am not opposed to it’s use to fill out details about in-universe info per WP:V, but it is unhelpful to rely on for notability. Hence, deletion is the only option as there is nothing to preserve. Haleth (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like Flames Rising has significantly updated their "about us" page as I'm not seeing the language Roy quotes to be there. I'm seeing editorial control of a site that started 18 years ago. Site seems to provide editorial oversight, have a long history and I can't find anything about it having any cases of significant errors in their 18 years. Feel free to take it to WP:RSN and I wouldn't use it for a BLP or any controversial subjects. But for a review? Sure, it's fine. Hobit (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no qualms with WP:AGF and assessing Flames Rising as a potentially reliable source given their long history of activity, and it is probably worth discussing on WP:RSN. However, we do need to put everything into context for the purpose of this discussion. When or which year has Flame Rising formally upped their editorial standards, or when has the site's credentials as a whole "leveled up" aka reached a saturation point where we could consider them to be a subject matter expert and thus reliable, whether as a self-published source (fanzine) or even as a journalistic source? The review for Exodus was posted in 2010, not by the owner or the project manager/reviewer, but by a Megan Robertson. That post does not list her byline(s), though the "about" section as well as her comments profile reveal that she runs another fanzine-like site, and she appears to have made no further contributions to Flame Rising after December 2012. Taking Roy's from 2018 comments and your comments of their "about" page into context, and I AGF that what Roy said was true and accurate, it is likely then that editorial control or oversight had only improved not that long ago, as there is no evidence I can see that it always had proper oversight since its first day of operation. To give an example, multiple sources have been given nuanced assessments through VG Wikiproject discussions, with clear distinction on when certain sites are judged reliable or otherwise based on what we know of their histories, for e.g. not everything on Kotaku is retroactively reliable, and The Escapist had content quality issues for nearly a year. Haleth (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The first source, which I machine translated, doesn't cover the lawsuit - it seems to mention Exodus in a single sentence. And it doesn't even mention the lawsuit, just "legal problems". Maybe it's a TL issue, but anyway, it's hardly a SIGCOV for this game. The second source, hmmm, not sure if it is reliable or not, borderline (a niche website but run by 2+ people, and the article is from another one). Likewise, the last page, Geek & Sundry, is a similar niche, and the coverage there is rather short. I don't think this game is notable - it exists, got covered by a very minor website and mentioned in passing by two others. That's below my GNG bar, but of course, you have the right to disagree. Thanks for the effort digging up the sources. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also reading the machine translation. It is 3 paragraphs about the context for the creation of the game we are discussing. It's reliable and about this topic. Not about the details of the game, but the context of its creation. Something that would very much belong in a Wikipedia article on this topic. Your point about Flames Rising is valid (evolution of its statement on editorial control) but again, this is a game review. Do you have any actual doubts about that review being accurate? I'd not use it for a BLP, but for a review? It's fine. Feel free to bring to RSN if you feel otherwise. Hobit (talk) 16:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hobit, though I'm sympathetic to concerns about scope -- the article needs improvement, but the sources given can improve it, and by extension deletion is not indicated. Vaticidalprophet 21:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hobit, and I also agree with Vati on the need for improvement. BOZ (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per the above keep votes. Alphaonekannan (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have opened a discussion about Flames Rising on RSN as suggested by Hobit, here. Would be good to get a definitive consensus as the source is currently cited in 70 articles across Wikipedia.
  • Delete, no evidence of notability. Neither Geek + Sundry nor Flamerising, the only two sources available to provide notability, meet the criteria required to provide notability according to GNG. Guidelines are very clear that self-published sources like these can not be used to confer notability on an article in terms of WP:SIGCOV. Almost all websites "except for those published by traditional publishers (such as news media organizations)" are to be considered self-published. There really is not much room for debate here. --Boynamedsue (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Geek & Sundry is an actual news media organization which focuses on a pop culture niche, not a self-published fanzine/blog like Flamesrising. The issue here though is their coverage of the product isn't significant enough. Haleth (talk) 09:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the split votes and an open RSN discussion as to a source, an extension seems valid
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: can be improved —¿philoserf? (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Even if the two or three cites mentioned above are reliable, the information in them about this game is so trivial/not-notable that it certainly does not indicate significant coverage. Therefore, this article does not pass WP:GNG. Hocus00 (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, lacks significant coverage. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Geschichte (talk) 18:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Hawkins[edit]

Victoria Hawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article's PROD was taken down with a little improvement afterwards but I thought I'd take it to AfD. Actress has four acting credits (two one-episode appearances, a recurring role and a main role in a miniseries), so not enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR in my opinion. There is no WP:SIGCOV about her career, therefore she does not meet GNG. – DarkGlow • 15:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 15:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 15:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – DarkGlow • 15:03, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I added a second reference here. Both references are specific individual profiles of her. When you add this to more minor coverage, she seems to pretty clearly meet the GNG despite somewhat limited roles. matt91486 (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY by matt91486. GNG reflects in-depth and, in the Hawkins case, persistent coverage by independent RS, even if the caliber of roles seems below NACTOR. I found additional coverage under "Vicky Hawkins" e.g. 2007 and 2015. To make things even more confusing she now uses her married name Victoria Temperley. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HouseOfChange and Matt91486. Passes WP:NACTOR. Cirton (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has indepth coverage and passing GNG. 1друг (talk) 19:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. If there still is content that should be merged elsewhere (but it appears to already having been done), drop me a note and I'll put the desired info in your userspace. Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Australian Open – Women's singles final[edit]

2018 Australian Open – Women's singles final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is demonstrably not more notable than similar grand slam finals, as per the guidelines of the tennis wikiproject. I've been googling this article and it doesn't have any sort of the notable press coverage that you would expect for having a whole article dedicated to it. Jonaththejonath (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep and sanction the nominator for wasting everyone's time. All Grand Slam finals get plenty of media attention.Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little confused to why I deserve sanctions for literally following the WikiProject Tennis guidelines, which say "Matches that deserve their own articles on Wikipedia are those that have received significant coverage compared to other tennis matches at a similar level, such as matches of record-setting events or matches with significant controversies." This match wasn't a record setting event. It didn't have significant controversies. Unlike most of the other matches, it didn't have notable press coverage as compared to other finals. I'm simply following the guidelines of the project here. Jonaththejonath (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't speedy keep this or sanction the nominator, as the tennis guidelines specify Matches that deserve their own articles on Wikipedia are those that have received significant coverage compared to other tennis matches at a similar level, such as matches of record-setting events or matches with significant controversies. Please consult WP:TENNIS before creating such articles. This one gets coverage, and I'm not sure why we wouldn't necessarily have articles on tournament finals considering they all get coverage, but it appears as if WP:TENNIS requires and/or suggests sustained coverage for coverage of matches, otherwise every tennis final would ignore NOTNEWS and be eligible for an article. If that's the case, this should probably be merged into one of the 2018 Australian Open articles. SportingFlyer T·C 13:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By your logic, every single individual game of a sports playoff series would deserve a full article because of the sustained coverage it gets in several publications. I'd actually be in favor of this (as well as having an article on every final), but it's not about what I think. I feel like those pretty clearly violate the fact that Wikipedia is not news and that it's not the job of Wikipedia to track current events. Else, for example, there would be an article about every baseball game that had sustained press coverage nationally, which is a few every season. I understand that you are a much more experienced editor than I am and I want to defer to established opinion, but this argument sounds like a stretch. There is a valid reason for pretty much every other tennis GS final that has its own article, where they got more than just the usual press coverage that goes around a sporting event. Not this one Jonaththejonath (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yuck! Crow for dinner. I assumed every Grand Slam final would have an article; I am utterly dumbfounded (gobsmacked for the British in the audience) to discover I am wrong. My abject apologies. (One tiny fig leaf: you brought an essay to a guideline/policy fight.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, as you know, WP:NOT overrides WP:GNG; just because the topic of an article receives coverage does not mean that it necessarily gets included in the encyclopaedia or is eligible for an article. Project essays can be important in these types of scenarios, because they clarify what's considered routine/NOTNEWS and what would be acceptable for an article (as opposed to a guideline which says "any X is notable," which would be over-ridden by GNG, or failure thereof.) Therefore the test here is whether this event received enough lasting coverage to merit inclusion as a stand-alone article: the alternative would be merging the information into another page such as the draw, as there's no reason not to include what we have here in the encyclopaedia somewhere. I really have no opinion on whether merge or keep would be appropriate here, but I'd lean merge unless a keep argument can be made. SportingFlyer T·C 17:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming back to this after a couple weeks I am a solid merge and delete, assuming there's anything to merge. I do not think a redirect is necessary. SportingFlyer T·C 13:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't put every single final of every single tournament on display here. That would be beyond ridiculous and it's why we have notability guidelines at Project Tennis. 2018 Wimbledon is covered extensively for both men and women's singles... but a separate article for each final in the history of tennis is not. If it's something quite special, where the press has talked of it being one of the greatest matches ever, then we do cover it. Are we going to put up an article on Steffi Graf's 1988 French final against Natasha Zvereva... a 6-0, 6-0 crushing? Not a chance. This was placed here because of a discussion at WikiProject Tennis and to call for sanctioning was really a low blow. And this has zero to do with wikipedia guidelines/policy. There are second round matches in lower level events that might get a ton of press because Federer or Nadal might be playing Shall we make articles for those also? No. We make sure there are articles on every single tennis tournament on the ATP and WTA tour. But not individual matches or finals on the WTA and WTA tour. Goodness, for the Olympics we have an article in 2016 on the Men's 100 meters dash. It covers the event extensively. We don't create an article on the just the final heat. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I say we merge the two articles Women's singles and Women's singles final into 1, instead of deleting them, since the main articles contains the information for the tournament itself and the article about the final should be merges into that main one, either in the women's singles draw or the main page for the 2018 edition of the Australian Open. It would be a shame to delete the article, because the outcome of the match determined who the new number 1 player was going to be and you don't get to see those matches every day, let alone in a grand slam final. That's my opinion on the matter. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 14:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this narrows down to what 'significant' means in the context of 'significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject'. Many tennis matches in grand slam series will receive coverage in reliable sources - you will be able to find a dozen or so when Djokovic beats Federer in a semi-final, but this doesn't make every semi-final notable and thus worthy of an article (subject to WP:NOT). The coverage should be a dominating event - such as if something absolutely groundbreaking happened (eg, the 'ground' on the tennis court broke open) - causing it to be a notable event. I think that's a way this issue can be reconcilled. There is nothing particularly notable about this match. It should be deleted. Mostly neutral on whether intro content should be merged, but I don't think that the set-by-set breakdown is really necessary. Local Variable (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang ChunYuan[edit]

Zhang ChunYuan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to be a notable historical figure. Fails WP:GNG. Dixiku (talk) 14:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The chinese name is 張春元. Searching that does provide some online & book results but can't read them thoroughly enough to determine if they meet WP:GNG requirements. From what I could Google Translate my gut feeling is that there might be enough for an article, with some cleanup. Jumpytoo Talk 19:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Xi, Lian (2018). Blood Letters: The Untold Story of Lin Zhao, a Martyr in Mao's China. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 978-1-5416-4423-6. Retrieved 2021-06-12.

      The book discusses Zhang Chunyuan on pages  103, 104, 108–109, 114, 118.

      In Chapter 3, the book noted that Zhang Yuanxun was Lin Zhao's "classmate, friend, and a fellow poetry club member" at Peking University. Along with Shen Zeyi, Zhang Yuanxu "posted their call to arms, a poem entitled 'It Is Time,' which touched off the May 19 movement at Peking University." On May 22, Zhang Yuanxun and another supporter of democracy did a debate at night with "a large, organized group of leftist students". A student pamphlet titled The Square had a foreword written by Zhang that "proclaimed a new era in China, a "'May Fourth' New Culture movement of the socialist era!"" He was expelled by The Red Building's editorial board since he had ties to The Square.

      In Chapter 4, the book notes, "A leading member of the group was a self-made man named Zhang Chunyuan, who had joined the People’s Liberation Army before 1949, served in the Korean War, and returned after he was wounded. Zhang entered Lanzhou University in 1956 and, a year later, like hundreds of thousands of other earnest students across China, fell victim to Mao’s “open conspiracy.”" The book notes, "In May 1960, Tan Chanxue, Zhang Chunyuan’s girlfriend and a core member of the group, made an unsuccessful attempt to smuggle herself across the border to Hong Kong. A daring gambit by Zhang Chunyuan to rescue her—carrying a fake Public Security Bureau ID, he walked in the front door of the detention center where she was being held—ended in disaster: police found out his true identify and promptly detained him." The book notes that in August 1961, Zhang Chunyuan was able to escape from incarceration through the "ruse of bodily distress". On a continual basis, he "starved himself" and kept throwing up "until he passed out". The prison staff brought him to a "reform-through labor hospital outside the prison". After several weeks, Zhang pretended to be a doctor finished with his shift and left the hospital on foot. After traveling to Suzhou, he found out Lin Zhao had been arrested. He next traveled to Shanghai. Zhang sent a postcard to the imprisoned Lin Zhao using the name Xu Xianmin. Zhang was arrested again on September 6, 1961. In 1965, he received a life imprisonment sentence. In 1970, Zhang was executed "during the “One Strike, Three Anti” campaign for allegedly “repeating counterrevolutionary activities inside prison.”"

      In Chapter 7, the book notes that Zhang Yuanxun was Lin Zhao's former classmate and met her in prison on May 6, 1966. It called him a "once a frustrated suitor" of her. He was "arrested on December 25, 1957, along with a small group of Peking University Rightists who had secretly planned to seek political asylum at one of the foreign diplomatic missions in Beijing". He was taken to Hebei province labor camp after receiving an eight-year jail term. Although the sentence ended in December 1965, he had to stay in the labor camp "to undergo continued reform". Since he was a former prisoner, the prison officials let him visit his family for one week per year. He used that opportunity to visit Lin Zhao at Tilanqiao Prison. The book notes, "Zhang hoped to persuade her to choose self-preservation, to "back down from 'stubborn resistance.'"

    2. Shao, Jiang (2015). Citizen Publications in China Before the Internet. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 187. doi:10.1007/978-1-137-49208-1. ISBN 978-1-349-69679-6. Retrieved 2021-06-12.

      The book notes on page 49 that roughly 200 students and instructors were sentenced to labor in Wushan and Tianshui in July 1958 in the middle of the Anti-Rightist Campaign. Among them were "Zhang Chunyuan (张春元), a second-year history major, was sent to a tractor station in Wushan county. The 26-year-old had taken part in the Korean War, driving vehicles for the Chinese army. He had left the army after being wounded in one leg and later, enrolled to study history at Lanzhou University. The tractor station, which was situated on the transportation line, soon became a meeting place for dissidents who had been labeled rightists, and driving the tractor between the villages, Zhang became a messenger for his fellow rightists." On page 53, the book discusses how Zhang was Tan's fiancé and was arrested in his attempt to use a "forged police document" to rescue her. The book notes on page 53 that Zhang Chunyuan was executed in 1970.

      The book notes on page 1987, "Zhang Chunyuan, a former PLA soldier and a history student at Lanzhou University in 1957, had been sentenced to labor under surveillance in Wushan county during the period of the magazine’s publication. He was one of the initiators and a convener of the magazine. He was imprisoned in August 1960 and escaped in 1961. He was rearrested in 1962 and executed in 1968."

    3. Zhang, Yu (2021). From Wang Shiwei to Liu Xiaobo: Prisoners of Literary Inquisition Under Communist Rule in China (1947-2010). Translated by Mosher, Stacy. Taipei: Independent Chinese PEN Center. PEN International. ISBN 978-198976317-9. Retrieved 2021-06-12.

      The subject's name is also translated as Zhang Yuanxun. The book notes on page 140, "Among the most influential postings were an epic poem by Shen Zeyi and Zhang Yuanxun, 'The Time Has Come'". The article notes that Zhang was among 716 who were called Rightists. The book notes on page 141 that "Zhang Chunyuan, a Rightist student from the History Department at Lanzhou University, along with other Rightist students and teachers undergoing Reform through Labor in Gansu, launched an effort to change the country's course. ... Zhang wrote an essay entitled 'The Current Situation and Our Mission', in which he proposed 'bringing about a peaceful, democratic and free socialist society in China'. He also mimeographed 'Song of the Seagull' as publicity material." The book notes that he was arrested in July 1960. The book notes on page 227 that Zhang Yuanxun was the chief editor of Square, a publication from the Hundred Flowers Society at Peking University.

    4. 荏苒 (2016-06-06). "林昭同案犯张春元、杜映华之死" [The deaths of Lin Zhao's co-convicts Zhang Chunyuan and Du Yinghua]. DW News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-06-12. Retrieved 2021-06-12.

      The article notes that Zhang Chunyuan was a history student who received a life imprisonment sentence. It said he who was "falsely accused" of "conspiring to escape from prison in riots" in 1968 and received a death sentence and was executed.

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Zhang Chunyuan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Useful (if grim) reading sources from Cunard above. However,Zhang Yuanxun may need to be distinguished from Zhang Chunyuan? See the Lin Zhao article where the two occupy different points in the chronology of her life. AllyD (talk) 07:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing this out. I thought Zhang Yuanxun and Zhang Chunyuan were the same people with their names translated differently but based on the chronology you have pointed it out, they are different people. I've stricken out the parts about Zhang Yuanxun. Cunard (talk) 08:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Cheema[edit]

Nadeem Cheema (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article was proposed for deletion a while ago but the tag was removed without addressing the notability concerns. The subject is a non notable filmmaker who has received no significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore fails our WP:GNG and WP:DIRECTOR. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Umakant Bhalerao (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe Article has potential to be on Wikipedia. I'll advocate for giving this article some time, so I can improve this. (Commenting here in hope that admin will not remove this article on basis of silent consensus.) Thank you Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Person passes WP:Entertainer with significant roles in Notable films such as Geo Sar Utha Kay, Delhi Gate (film). Passes WP:Entertainer Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cleaned up the article. Has 5 reliable newspaper references. Passes WP:GNG now. Ngrewal1 (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Red Amick[edit]

Red Amick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unreferenced article that fails WP:SIGCOV. This is essentially a WP:FANCRUFT article on a non-notable driver that only participated in two races and never made a significant placement. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we don't need coverage on every person who ever participated in a race and whose available sources can only be found in statistical databases geared towards die hard sports fans. That kind of coverage is not significant enough for an encyclopedia entry. 4meter4 (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Competitors in the F1 World Championship and the Indy 500 are generally considered notable per WP:F1 and WP:AOWR; however the lack of cited sources needs to be addressed. Eagleash (talk) 08:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indy 500 drivers satisfy the criteria at WP:NMOTOR, namely the third criteria.
SSSB (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Drivers who compete in the Indy 500 are exceedingly likely to be notable, however sources for an article like this will likely be older and unavailable online. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's modern sources which can be used to cite just about everything in the article, eg Old Racing Cars and ESPN. I was able to find a period article about him suggesting the car he drove in the 1960 Indy 500 was actually the same car that won in 1957 and 1958, as well as suggesting he was quite impressive for a rookie [13], so probably there's many other contemporary sources which offer coverage (admittedly I haven't looked). I don't have the 1959 or 1960 annuals myself, but I'd also assume that Floyd Clymer's annuals would give a somewhat detailed profile of him as they do every driver for the year. A7V2 (talk) 09:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with 4meter4's principle, that we have way too many sportspeople just because they've been at one or few professional X sport events, but... Indy 500 is not just any other event it is one of worldwide top level auto racing events. - Nabla (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus NCORP not met Nosebagbear (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ujjwal Bharat Academy[edit]

Ujjwal Bharat Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP completely. No references available. Dixiku (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no google news hits, absolute no reliable source, not even one. Cirton (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nabla (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shizzio[edit]

Shizzio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. There is nothing but some non-reputed promotional references which aren't independent if covers him significantly. Dixiku (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dixiku (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable musician. Cirton (talk) 19:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus NCORP not met Nosebagbear (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perigreen Safe Foods[edit]

Perigreen Safe Foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable company. Has only passing mentions in 2 reliable sources. Created by a single purpose editor whose main edits have been to this page and that of its CEO. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP Jupitus Smart 14:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 21:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Dunn[edit]

Aaron Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did this person even exist? The only listed reference is two blank pages of a book. I can't find any other reference to him either. Even if he did exist, it's unlikely he's notable. Lennart97 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. Lennart97 (talk) 13:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I’ve looked in the single source and searched the text version and can’t find any reference to this person. It may be a hoax but assuming it isn’t, I can’t see any basis at all for thinking this person is notable. Mccapra (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a hoax per the cited reference Robinson, Doane (1904). History of South Dakota. pp. 986–988 via Google Books. I'm not sure what the issue is with the Internet Archive version. I also find some brief mentions in mining manuals and such. See Google Books search. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, that's good to know. Any thoughts on notability (keep/delete)? Lennart97 (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 68.189.242.116 did you actually find a reference to Dunn in the work by Robinson? I couldn’t find any reference to him in it at all. Mccapra (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The two page entry I linked above (to the Google Books version, which should show the public domain text -- the Internet Archive version appears to be truncated) constitutes significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV), but is only one WP:RS source. I'm not finding any other significant coverage in the mining journals and news. I'm still trying to do an obituary search but unless something else turns up, I cannot make a strong case for keeping. 68.189.242.116 (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure Robinson constitutes a reliable source, as he doesn't cite any references of his own. Rather, this seems like hearsay published nineteen years after Dunn's supposed death. Dunn clearly was a real person who had a reputation as a prominent amalgamator, but there simply isn't enough reliable literature documenting his life or his legacy. I will look for sources from local historians in Sioux Falls; if this turns up nothing, I vote for deletion. Lord Dweebington1 (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Re: My outreach to local historians. I actually reached out to the Deadwood City Archivist a few days ago, asking for documentation on Dunn. They haven't gotten back to me, so I'm concluding there is no further research accessible. Lord Dweebington1 (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BASIC. ——Serial 12:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The person is not notable and the article has barely any references at all. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the passing mention in the one source is just not enough to establish notability for encyclopedia purposes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep -- If this was about a person who settled to clear and farm land, I would have no doubt that he as NN. However he was a mining prospector and pioneer. It is unfortunate that the mining companies he was associated with are red links, so that I cannot tell how significant they were. Setting up the first stamp mill in the west suggests operation on a substantial scale and thus notability. We should not judge an article solely by its references. The test if verifiability, not being verified or whether it is fully referenced (except BLP cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Dua Lipa#Early life. czar 21:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dukagjin Lipa[edit]

Dukagjin Lipa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Supposedly notable by familial association. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 13:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Dua Lipa where he’s already mentioned. Not independently notable. Mccapra (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per comment above --Vacant0 (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per G5. As no !votes have been made here (except that which is implied by the editor who filed the AfD) and this was closed early due to deletion, clear consensus on whether the article should exist (outside the speedy deletion process) is not found. Therefore, a re-creation is not eligible for G4 speedy deletion, though other criteria still may apply. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 20:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Jamnagar[edit]

Economy of Jamnagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary fork of Jamnagar#Economy, where the subject is covered more extensively. Don't see any obvious need to split that article, and certainly not without discussion. Also, includes a likely copyvio, which, when removed, would leave next to nothing there. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete and redirect to Charu Asopa#Personal life. Randykitty (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Malviya[edit]

Neeraj Malviya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and lack of reliable sources. Preetykaur761 (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has significant news coverage if you search google and it would seem she is a popular actress in Bollywood. I have added a few new sources to the article. Meets WP:ENT. Peter303x (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Peter303x the person you have added sources to are about Charu Asopa. This is an actor Neeraj who dated her and fails notability tag and gng. It’s a he. Preetykaur761
Oh I see what happened, I got something confused. I have corrected it, but all the sources are still good and if you search Google news, there are tons of other news about the subject. Peter303x (talk) 09:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but its still fails gng as he is not a notable actor only doing few shows doesn’t make him notable it fails WP:NACTOR and GNG. Also adding unreliable sources don’t count. There are lack of reliable sources which fails GNG.
And Peter303x the sources are not good Bollywood Life Tellychakkar and Bollywood Shaadi is not reliable sources per WP:ICTFSOURCES so no it fails notability and GNG Preetykaur761 (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see "Bollywood Life" on the list, but not "Bollywood Shaadi," but the main reason I voted keep is that this person is in many Indian publications, so that would mean they are very notable in India. He is also in India Today [14], which is considered reliable. Peter303x (talk) 09:13, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the news several years ago does not make him notable. And also the page only has two reliable sources and search there are not more than two. So it’s better to delete because he lacks gng — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preetykaur761 (talkcontribs) 22:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Daniel (talk) 04:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ullens School[edit]

Ullens School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet notability (WP:N) and lacks verifiability (WP:V) Sushant1432 (talk) 12:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No basis for deletion, the article is neutral and informative regarding Nepal's first IBDP. Serves as a resource for young students applying for post-secondary education in Nepal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Topendragyang99 (talkcontribs) 06:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:37, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Free Download Manager[edit]

Free Download Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources and no claim of notability.Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. A WP:BEFORE doesn't turn up any significant coverage. Laplorfill (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Laplorfill (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It's one of the most popular software while coming to download management and Torrent support. Best thing is, it's an open-source application and freeware, which simply allows user to download files from the internet without spending a single penny compared to the other software, for which the developers charge for overcoming the limitations of their softwares (trial applications). Utkarsh Nayan Gupta (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2021 (IST)
@Utkarsh Nayan Gupta: Please don't WP:CITEBOMB with rubbish, your first source was a primary reference which blows your credibility to pieces. The Techradar review was credible. Please read WP:THREE and remember peoples will only look at your first 3 links so make them the very best satisfaction of WP:RS. And raw links are a complete pain so please give full citations ... I really abhor being made to work looking these up. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That said you've arguably pretty well disproved the nomination statement already by the badgering nom. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 06:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete all sources are either from self published website/forums or download repositories/playstore with no indication of notablity.Ratnahastintalk 07:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:NSOFT. The subject has been covered in several popular magazines. While the coverage is not usually super in-depth, many can be construed as reliable reviews, and there is at least some evidence of significant coverage.
Reviews or comparisons to other similar software (these include a couple of paragraphs of text or more)
  • Farwell, Jennifer. "Free Download Manager." Smart Computing in Plain English; Lincoln Vol. 21, Iss. 1, (Jan 2010): 25.
  • Prince, Brian. "Apple Mum About Aug. 7 Event; Apple-watchers speculate the company will be introducing a redesigned iMac desktop." eWeek. New York (Aug 1, 2007): 1.
  • Waddilove, Roland. "Do You Need A Download Manager?" Micro Mart; London Iss. 1352, (Mar 5 – Mar 11, 2015): 66–69.
  • Free Download Manager review. TechRadar. 15 May 2017.
  • "THE BEST FREE DOWNLOAD MANAGER 2017." Windows Help & Advice 2017: 88–89.
  • Stapley, Will. "CREATE YOUR OWN... Windows 11." Computer Act!ve; London Iss. 544, (Jan 4 – Jan 15, 2019): 50–57.
  • Stapley, Will. "Organise & Manage Your Downloads." Computer Act!ve; London Iss. 559, (Jul 31 – Aug 13, 2019): 62–63.
  • Stapley, Will. "Best Free Software." Computer Act!ve; London Iss. 584, (Jul 15 – Jul 28, 2020): 18–19.
Conference papers
  • Pradono, K A et al. is peer-reviewed. Yasin et al. is a conference paper that is not peer-reviewed, but it's a included as chapter in a book published by Springer, which is very reputable publisher. I don't have access to Farwell's review in full-text, but according to metadata it's definitely a product review. Politrukki (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced Springer link above with psu.edu link because the former is behind paywall. Politrukki (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. My deletion argument is basically everything Ratnahastin said, though if there are indeed many notable and credible sources about this, perhaps add them to the article. AdoTang (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @AdoTang: to establish notability, it's enough that reliable sources have sufficiently "noted" the subject. They don't need to be cited in the article. If one for example uses ProQuest search to find sources about "Free Download Manager" (in quotes), they will find many sources about the subject. Mainly popular magazine or newspaper articles. Many of them only include a passing mention of FDM, and hence they cannot be used to establish notability. That doesn't mean they can't be used for writing content in the article.
    I think Ratnahastin's argument (that you lent) is invalid because it's based on assumption that no reliable sources have covered the subject, even though in the above discussion the reliability of TechRadar was not disputed. Initially, TechRadar was the only source I found about the subject and I would have supported deletion had it been the only source. Politrukki (talk) 13:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The notability is established with the articles linked or named above. – K4rolB (talk) 22:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Claims of notable achievements are not supported by WP:RS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:52, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Yasin, Muhammad; Wahla, Muhammad Arif; Kausar, Firdous (2010). "Analysis of Free Download Manager for Forensic Artefacts". In Goel, Sanjay (ed.). Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering. Springer Science+Business Media. pp. 5968. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-11534-9_6. Retrieved 2021-06-20. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)

      The abstract notes: "Free Download Manager (FDM) is one of the most popular download managers due to its free availability, high download speed and versatility. It contains a lot of information that is of potential evidentiary value even if a user deletes web browser history, cookies and temporary internet files. ... The widespread use of FDM makes this research work an attractive option for forensic investigators, ranging from law enforcement agencies to employers monitoring personnel."

    2. Ellis, Cat; Marshall, Carrie (2017-05-15). "Free Download Manager review: One of the finest download managers around". TechRadar. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.

      The review notes: "It's worth noting Free Download Manager's interesting history; it was originally proprietary software, and was later released under the GNU General Public License (though source code for versions 5 and later isn't available). As such, you have to be careful where you download it – the link we've provided here is to the original vendor, but other distributors are free to bundle it with potentially unwanted programs that could really spoil your day."

    3. Popa, Bogdan (2021-05-22). "Free Download Manager". Softpedia. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20.

      The review notes: "All in all, Free Download Manager is a keeper since it has all the features one might require from such a software. Moreover, it does not stress your CPU every time you start a new download."

    4. Farwell, Jennifer (January 2010). "Free Download Manager". SmartComputing. Vol. 21, no. 1. p. 25. ISSN 1093-4170.

      The abstract notes: "The article reviews the Free Download Manager, an open source software available at Freedownloadmanager.org."

    5. "Free Download Manager review". Download.com. 2015-02-14. Archived from the original on 2021-06-20. Retrieved 2021-06-20 – via Yahoo! Finance.
    6. "Manage your online passwords; Free Download Manager: hands on how to". S A Computer Magazine. Vol. 13, no. 5. 2005.

      The abstract notes: "Information on the following: How to manage your online passwords (p.88); How touse Free Download Manager (p.90). Illustrates with photographs".

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Free Download Manager to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to London Underground. There's no consensus to either delete or merge, but there's consensus to not keep the article, so redirection is a compromise that allows merging if desired. Sandstein 07:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Track access controller[edit]

Track access controller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not meet WP:GNG. If this was a common position at multiple subways/railroads, it would be notable, but as far as I can tell this particular job is specific to the London Underground. The article is pure original research (WP:OR). Rusf10 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is sigcov in the book People and Rail Systems, but that was the only one I could find, and GNG needs multiple. (Google Books had a hit on Down the Tube but I checked this source and it was only a passing mention) Jumpytoo Talk 02:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Much of this article reads like a job advert and is unsuitable for Wikipedia, it's also not notable enough for a stand-alone article but the small usable parts of the article should be merged to a broader topic of which it is a notable part. I'm not sure what that article is, but possibly one about railway engineering work or railway maintenance roles as there will be an equivalent role (or role(s) which include these responsibilities) on other networks. For example, on Network Rail there is a role called "Site access controller" which seems to be essentially the same role as this. Thryduulf (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 09:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, with London Underground. There is some useful content here but there are not enough available sources to support a standalone article. The term is only used in reference to the system used on the London underground. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    London Underground is probably too high-level a target for the merge. While this name might be exclusive to LU the role itself is not - a direct equivalent exists in Network Rail under a different name (site access controller). Other networks likely also have their equivalent roles under different names too. Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is not specific tho, as Thryduulf says, the job title and work-qualification details are. The article should be generalized. I'm sure we have editors who could do that DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:51, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we can't identify a suitable merge target, then keeping the article is preferable to deletion (for which there isn't justification) in my view. Thryduulf (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And generalize, as this job is not exclusive to the London UndergroundJackattack1597 (talk) 11:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as wp:or and wp:junk. Declaring 13 years after deprodding and nothing changing that "we have editors who could" improve this is an optimistic statement to say the least. Absent any evidence of sigcov in rss, this article remains non-compliant with mos and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Avilich (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, run of the mill job, 14 years without one cite says it all. Lilporchy (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established for this very specific job on the London Underground. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 21:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Kliff[edit]

Sarah Kliff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, no independent coverage, a perfectly sound journalistic career but no notability per WP:JOURNALIST. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I found a 2018 CJR interview with some WP:SECONDARY context, and a 2019 NPR interview with less, but this does not appear sufficient for WP:JOURNALIST or WP:BASIC notability. Her website says "Her reporting has inspired new legislation in Congress, been cited by the Supreme Court, and resulted in multiple hospitals revising their billing policies," and CJR reports, "Since Kliff started the project, lawmakers have introduced multiple bills to address surprise medical fees, including legislation sponsored by New Hampshire democratic Senator Maggie Hassan that aides told CJR is inspired by Kliff’s reporting." Despite her established career as a journalist, it appears to be WP:TOOSOON to meet the notability guidelines. Beccaynr (talk) 04:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She has no coverage in independent sources, nor does it investigate any high-profile cases.--Wellring (talk) 13:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment out of process, no notification.--Aesopstael (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinit K. Bansal (Author). plicit 09:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinit K. Bansal[edit]

Vinit K. Bansal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. Just a WP:ROTM author. There are a great many authors. Wikipedia does not require an article on each. In any case this is an advert. No point in draftifying. The creating editor chose to move it to main space FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 09:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) 🌀Locomotive207-talk🌀 00:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Ueter[edit]

Carl Ueter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

unimportant person, only very few references of little significance 20th c violin concerto (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Perhaps there are sources in German, but, I'm not finding anything that qualifies this subject for inclusion via WP:GNG NOR WP:NMUSIC. Missvain (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 08:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. the references seem sufficient. Full profesor at major Conservatory. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the criterion of WP:NACADEMIC #5. Any chair at a European university in the 1950s (in the days before personal chairs were common, almost all chairs were established and few academics bore the title of "professor") would generally be the equivalent of a named chair at an American university today. Many still are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC(talk) 09:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As DGG and Necrothesp have said, having been a professor at a German university is sufficient to meet criterion WP:NACADEMIC. Named chairs are uncommon at German universities and reaching the full professorship before the expansion of higher education in the second half of the century equals a named chair in the United States. Additionally, a case for WP:GNG might be made: the volume Dirigent – Komponist – Universelle Persönlichkeit was published on the occasion of his death and is sure to contain significant coverage of his life. If there is good coverage on him in the Handbuch Deutsche Musiker 1933–1945, as de.wiki suggests, he is surely notable via that route. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Barel[edit]

Daniel Barel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable businessman—fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Most coverage is focused on his company, REE Automotive, rather than him personally. Normally I would redirect to the company, but that article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/REE Automotive (and subsequently salted). I can't see the deleted article, but it appears that this bio reuses many of the unreliable sources from the company article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Delete. I prodded the article for similar reasons, but then deprodded it at user SotoRoto's request when they said they intended to move it to REE Automotive (which I think is a potentially notable topic). So perhaps moving it to Draft:REE Automotive is a suitable approach here? MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:04, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Since this article is about the CEO, I think it would be better to just delete and start a draft about the company from scratch. The situation with the company article is already messy, and we don't need a convoluted page move history to compound that. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree that starting afresh also has its merits. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify is a good choice when it is unclear in which direction the content is going. Maybe it ends up merged into the parent company, maybe it gets edited to meet notability requirements at WP:ANYBIO. Ifnord (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and oppose draftify. It's pretty clear from WP:BEFORE searches that the subject will not meet GNG or ANYBIO. Best to start completely over on an article on REE Automotive.4meter4 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really no coverage to speak of with this individual. To the extent he shows up it all, it is entirely within the context of the company. Doesn't make sense to draftify when there isn't any indication that this individual will be independently notable IMHO. DocFreeman24 (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete G11, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Pianki[edit]

Jeff Pianki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Advertisement. References do not show the WP:SIGCOV that are independent of the subject. Hence failed WP:SINGER. GermanKity (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 18:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sirajudheen KP[edit]

Sirajudheen KP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable co-producer of two movies, the first of which is borderline non-notable. None of the references in the article talks anything in detail about him. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 07:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the article being nominated for deletion the second time in a month after Rich_Smith had decided to 'keep'? I am sorry, but it is slightly tiring to have to keep proving the notability of one person to different editors. — JosephJames 12:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 07:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 08:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Josephjames.me You did not prove anything the last time, there was no participation and the nominator decide to strangely close it as keep (And now that you have practically invited him here, I would like to hear him weigh in as well). I would first request you to indicate any WP:COI as it is quite evident from the image that you have one, before we proceed further in the discussion. Jupitus Smart 13:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:09, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the last discussion was supposed to be closed as withdrawn. Not sure why it was closed as keep by the nominator. I see dearth of references for the subject except some passing mentions. Chirota (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jupitus Smart If you believe the article does not pass the notability criteria, I would never argue against it. I am sorry if I came across as harsh in my previous message. It was a result of the article being nominated for deletion a second time. It is no excuse but if it was decided to delete it the first time, I feel like I might have reacted better. However, let me just state that I do not have a WP:COI. I assure you that I do not have any personal contact with the person in question. As for the picture, I got it from an acquaintance of mine (who did not pay me in any manner) who works in the film industry after I created the article. I hope you will notice that I have not attempted to "promote" the individual in any way in the article. I apologize once again. I'll attempt to better choose the subjects to base articles on. Thanks! — JosephJames 09:02, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. G4, recreation of a recently deleted topic, plus G5, by an obvious sockpuppet of the prior creator. -- ferret (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarasaland (Empire)[edit]

Sarasaland (Empire) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fictional empire that does not pass WP:GNG, the coverage cited in the article is a mixture of in-universe information, passing mentions and unreliable sources. A search uncovered nothing better. This article was also deleted less than a week and a half ago at Sarasaland Kingdoms. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Per WP:G4.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete probably qualifies as a speedy delete Dexxtrall (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - The article would be an obvious deletion due to not passing the WP:GNG regardless, but this is an obvious attempt at circumventing the just-closed deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarasaland Kingdoms. Should be Speedy Deleted under WP:G4 rather than being given the full week at AFD. Rorshacma (talk) 15:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it identical? or substantially so? Then G4 indeed applies. But just because a topic was deleted, doesn't mean that a newly recreated article on the same topic, by whatever name, is G4-eligible just in case the same criteria apply. Jclemens (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. signed, Iflaq (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Why Is It Being Deleted? Did I do something wrong?TheCraziestNintendoFan (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, are you not a sockpuppet of Error 365, and that you essentially copied and pasted deleted content from Sarasaland Kingdoms which you also was a primary author of? Haleth (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can reassure you I am not Error 365 nor was I primary author of the article Sarasaland Kingdoms Though it may seem that I am that person, this is just a coincidence and I am not Error 365.

TheCraziestNintendoFan (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's up to you, I suppose. I only ever posted on SPI board once. I don't know a particular admin who is SPI-active though. Either way, I'm unconvinced by this editor who is entirely lacking in subtlety. Haleth (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roheen Berry[edit]

Roheen Berry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A discussion will commence below to ascertain if the individual is notable enough or not for a wikipedia article.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 05:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment a rejected draft exists here Draft:Roheen Berry. I rejected it on 20 May and this one created on 30 May. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this article and also listed it for a deletion discussion to get more opinions on the topic. The previous draft was also written by myself. While I do not need to submit for article for creation, I like too. However, I have noticed inconsistency in the approvals for the article for creation process and that depending of the whim of just one reviewer it may pass or be rejected. Perhaps, it may be worthwhile removing rejection all together from AfC process, and only having advisory, until it is ready to be approved, or has better chance and time of finding an editor who may approve it. Specifically here, I believe the subject is notable, as he is CEO of Wiesmann a notable German car company, that should suffice. There are also references to Forbes, and other publications cited. --Death Star Central (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability whatsoever. Passing mention in some of the news about the business not about the subject. Some citations included don't even mention the subject. Notability is not inherited. RationalPuff (talk) 09:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like to disagree with the above comment, which I believe is not fully factual, if I understand it correctly. There is a feature interview with the subject of the article too here. Also how is the article about inherited notability? None of the subject's predecessors have a wikipedia article. So I don't see any relevance to that statement in this case. Besides there are many articles on wikipedia based solely on notability like this 17 year old Alexandre Grimaldi-Coste. Once again, there is so much inconsistency on wikipedia on this point I find, so I don't know if deleting and refusing is the correct and fair policy strategy in general for this, and the policy needs some review it self. But once again, I don't see how inherited notability applies. This article according to my perspective is about notability from a corporate acquisition and then the chief executive role of a notable German car company. Actually this could even be a one line article, like the article of the Aston Martin CEO Tobias Moers, with just a few lines and couple sources. I am happy for it to be cut down to that so that focus is just the role at Weismann, if the subject's family business seems to be an issue. I just thought better to include background here, so people who research the Weismann car company can be more aware of the ownership now. Which I believe is the purpose of wikipedia as the general audience would probably want to know more about that. But according to me this article would already be notable removing many of the references to the other business activities. It is the ownership and the role of CEO of a notable European car company, that are rather notable points evidently. --Death Star Central (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per RationalPuff. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:ANYBIO. Being a CEO of a company which may or may not return from bankruptcy does not confer notability. Ifnord (talk) 13:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 09:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vinit K. Bansal (Author)[edit]

Vinit K. Bansal (Author) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotion and advertising Chief Minister (Talk) 03:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 03:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Umar II. – Joe (talk) 19:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Asim bint Asim[edit]

Umm Asim bint Asim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced and [15]Copy paste Chief Minister (Talk) 03:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Chief Minister (Talk) 03:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing notable other than being the mother of a famous person. Attempts to explain notability, but fails to and fails GNG. Note to User:Vedbas, the "copy-paste" appears to be a Wikipedia clone. Heart (talk) 16:19, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Umar II? Furius (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Furius though there’s only about one sentence that needs merging. Mccapra (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Nabla (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shahin Shokoofandeh[edit]

Shahin Shokoofandeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only source for the entire article is a single passing mention in a short WP:MILL piece on a movie. The rest of the article is an unsourced WP:POV essay. I could not find a single result for this person when doing a web search, nor when searching newspapers or books. Does not seem to meet WP:GNG. jp×g 02:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. jp×g 02:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. jp×g 02:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Much of the article is unsourced and a Google search brings back nothing on him. I also delete some major unsourced sections that seemed unrelated to him. Peter303x (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per nom. MrsSnoozyTurtle 06:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:ANYBIO. Ifnord (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep per WP:CSK #1. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture criticism[edit]

Architecture criticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ESSAY with mostly unsourced claims. I suggest the topic is better covered within Arts journalism, until a properly sourced version is long enough to require its own page. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Hopefully those people stating that a cleanup can rectify this situation will do so. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Definitely needs improvement, but this is a well-known beat for newspapers in larger markets (and in the past before hedge funds killed them, medium-market papers). A lot of our sources for buildings come from architecture critics who wrote in depth about them, and many of them have indeed moved online. Nate (chatter) 02:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. There is an abundance of sources on this topic. Here is a brief selection from my search on JSTOR:[1][2][3]Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 07:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hayes, William H. (Autumn 2002). "Architectural Criticism". The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. 60 (4): 325–329. JSTOR 1519993.
  2. ^ Boddy, Trevor (February 2009). "The Conundrums of Architectural Criticism". Journal of Architectural Education. 62 (3): 8–9, 95–96. JSTOR 40480942.
  3. ^ Fitch, James Marston (April 1976). "Architectural Criticism: Trapped in Its Own Metaphysics". JAE. 29 (4): 2–3. JSTOR 1424332.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The nomination's reference to WP:ESSAY is irrelevant and erroneous. The nomination seems to be proposing merger not deletion. And the proposed target of arts journalism seems worse in every way. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable topic, any issues can be resolved through normal editing. SportingFlyer T·C 12:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This did not have a clear reason for relisting I can identify. Consensus notability not met Nosebagbear (talk) 00:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Karamot Ullah Biplob[edit]

Karamot Ullah Biplob (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable bangladeshi journalist. Didn't won any significant award (most of awards are local & won by many with him, i don't consider those awards as significant). No significant coverage about this person. Most of sources are single/passing mention (doesn't addresses the topic directly and in detail). Fails WP:GNG, WP:JOURNALIST.

Also, this article was created by someone, who was banned for paid editing. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails GNG. ~Yahya () • 08:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 17:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flash out[edit]

Flash out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Im really not sure about the notability of this topic, but the article seems to be a mix of dictionary definition and a set of instructions which fall under WP:NOTHOWTO. Mccapra (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the opinion above.Cinadon36 08:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there aren't any viable sources currently within the article - it's essentially all blogs, forum posts, and YouTube videos, and it would be inappropriate to merge inadequately sourced content into another article. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Piotrus, I mean, maybe. I'll be honest, I can't find much referencing the term in a formal way. Most of the hits I'm seeing in automotive literature read as if the phrase "flash out" is simply how they're describing an indicator light flashing, rather than being a specific term. I'm getting a little semantic at that point, so I'd be open to hear if you or anyone else disagrees. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tpdwkouaa, Lack of reliable sourcing is a major problem, plus there is the issue of "flash out" being a simple DICTFEF for general cases of "[for a light] to shine out of something suddenly or in bursts.", and someone ORishlty trying to argue this is a technical term. It's a bit like trying to have articles for, uh, death (battery) or such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 16:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dell Marine[edit]

Dell Marine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. scope_creepTalk 23:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cited sources are either self published, closely connected to the business, or are trivial in nature. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. It’s sad because I like the pictures, but it’s a totally non-notable company.4meter4 (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:08, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. plicit 00:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WorldVistA[edit]

WorldVistA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NCORP and WP:NSOFT fail. A search does not find sigcov, and the current article does not contain any truly independent sources. The article contains one sentence about WorldVistA; the rest is WP:COATRACK for the software they produce. Neither produce good results in a source search. --- Possibly (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 16:29, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --- Possibly (talk) 19:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 00:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can’t find anything but passing mentions of this company. The only pages exclusively about it were the ones created by the company itself. It fails the notability guidelines. And… it’s written like a giant advertisement!! Delete delete delete. Helen (let’s talk) 02:00, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ORG can't find anything which makes it notable. 1друг (talk) 21:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.